Opinion
Case No.: 20-cv-2009-AJB(BLM)
2021-05-12
Lucas SCHERER and Amanda Scherer, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US, LLC; Bob Baker Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram Fiat; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
Payam Shahian, Regina Lotardo, Tionna Dolin, Anh Nguyen, Strategic Legal Practices, APC, Los Angeles, CA, Dara Tabesh, EcoTech Law Group, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs. Monica Yee Hernandez, Bowman and Brooke LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants.
Payam Shahian, Regina Lotardo, Tionna Dolin, Anh Nguyen, Strategic Legal Practices, APC, Los Angeles, CA, Dara Tabesh, EcoTech Law Group, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Monica Yee Hernandez, Bowman and Brooke LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL
[ECF No. 27]
Barbara L. Major, United States Magistrate Judge
On April 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. [ECF No. 27-1 ("MTC")]. On April 15, 2021, Defendant FCA US filed their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion [ECF No. 28 ("Oppo.")]. The crux of the parties' dispute is the scope of discovery in this matter. Plaintiffs contend discovery regarding the alleged Stalling Defect is relevant to the claims in this case and within the scope of discovery. See MTC. Defendant disagrees. See Oppo. For the reasons set forth below, and to the extent set forth below, the Court finds that the Stalling Defect discovery is relevant to this case and GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to compel.
DISCOVERY RELATED BACKGROUND
On January 26, 2021, Plaintiffs served discovery requests on FCA US, which included Request for Production of Documents, Set One, ("RFP") Nos. 16, 24, 28, 29, 34, 49, 53, 76, and 80, and Plaintiffs' Interrogatories, Set One ("ROGs"), Nos. 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19. ECF Nos. 27-1, at 1; 27-14, at 2-3. On March 2, 2021 Defendant responded to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories, Set One. ECF No. 27-18. On March 24, 2021, Defendant responded to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. ECF No. 27-16. Defendant objected to these RFPs and ROGs but provided substantive responses on specific topics. See ECF Nos. 27-16 & 27-18. Defendant refused to provide any discovery regarding the alleged Stalling Defect on the basis that it was not relevant to this litigation. Id.
LEGAL STANDARD
The scope of discovery under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P.") is defined as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) ; see also Surfvivor Media v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (same); U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Lee Investments L.L.C., 641 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir. 2011) ("District courts have wide latitude in controlling discovery, and [their] rulings will not be overturned in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.") (internal quotation and citations omitted). District courts also have broad discretion to limit discovery to prevent its abuse. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) (instructing that courts must limit discovery where the party seeking the discovery "has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action" or where the proposed discovery is "unreasonably cumulative or duplicative," "obtain[able] from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive," or where it "is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)").
DISCUSSION
A. Scope of Discovery
This case involves various claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("Song-Beverly") and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act ("Mag-Moss"), involving Plaintiffs' 2018 Chrysler Pacifica Touring L Plus ("Subject Vehicle"). ECF No. 28, at 2. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges, in part, "defects causing the Vehicle to stall" and that the Subject Vehicle "contained one or more design and/or manufacturing defects to the transmission and [powertrain control module]". ECF No. 1-2, at 10. Plaintiffs define the Stalling Defect as the "loss of crankshaft position synchronization, shifting problems, acceleration problems, and/or loss of power", which causes the vehicle to suddenly turn off. ECF No. 12, at 5-6; see also ECF No. 27-3, at fn 1. Plaintiffs' discovery requests "seek information related to databases with information about the alleged Stalling Defect, and about FCA's internal investigations into knowledge of the Stalling Defect." ECF No. 27, at 2.
Defendant states it has "agreed to produce all of the requested documents including extensive internal engineering analysis which includes documents relating to customer concerns related warranty claims data, failure rates, and C/1000 data in other 2018 Chrysler Pacifica vehicles that experienced similar issues as those by Plaintiff." ECF No. 28, at 2. However, Defendant argues that "FCA US conducted a detailed review of the repair orders in its possession and found no instances where service was performed for any stalling issue nor has there been evidence that Plaintiffs ever complained of stalling." ECF No. 28, at 3. As such, Defendant objects to all of Plaintiffs' discovery requests for information regarding the Stalling Defect and argues Plaintiffs' requests for such information are "an impermissible fishing expedition". ECF No. 28, at 4.
"[T]he allegations in a complaint generally dictate what evidence is discoverable." Trabulsi v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, Case No. 8:17-cv-2088-JLS-SK, 2018 WL 6444892, at *1 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 21, 2018) (citing Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1292 (9th Cir. 2000) ("A complaint guides the parties' discovery, putting the defendant on notice of the evidence it needs to adduce in order to defend against the plaintiff's allegations."); United States ex rel. Jacobs v. CDS, P.A., 2016 WL 4146077, at *2 (D. Idaho Aug. 3, 2016) ("The allegations of the complaint logically shape the scope of discovery.")). However, "the scope of permissible discovery is not based solely on whether a transaction is expressly mentioned in the complaint. The proper inquiry instead is whether the information sought is relevant to the parties' claims and defenses and proportional to the needs of the case." Trabulsi, 2018 WL 6444892, at *1 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) ).
Here, Plaintiffs' complaint alleges stalling defects and the discovery requests are designed to obtain information about the extent of the problem and FCA's knowledge of the problem. Defendant argues that the discovery is not relevant because Defendant's review of its repair orders reveals "there is no record that Plaintiffs ever complained of or sought service for stalling, loss of acceleration, and/or loss of crankshaft position synchronization." ECF No. 28, at 6. Defendant provides no legal authority to support its position that Defendant's interpretation of its repair orders determines the scope of discovery.
Plaintiffs assert that "Defendant violated the [Mag-Moss Warranty Act] when it breached the express warranty and implied warranties by failing to repair the defects and nonconformities" on the Subject Vehicle. ECF No. 12, at 10. One of those alleged defects is the Stalling Defect at issue. In support, Plaintiffs explain they brought the Subject Vehicle to Defendant's authorized repair facilities for stalling concerns on June 4, 2019, and June 22, 2020. ECF No. 12, at 3-4. Plaintiffs admit that "Defendant's technicians concluded the Subject Vehicle was not in need of repair" but argue that they experienced stalling problems and sought repairs based on those stalling problems. Id., at 4. The repair records support Plaintiffs' claim that they experienced stalling problems, even though Defendant's technicians did not substantiate the defect. Accordingly, contrary to Defendant's arguments, the repair records support Plaintiff's position that the Stalling Defect discovery is relevant to Plaintiffs' claims that Defendant did not comply with its obligations under the Acts.
Plaintiffs complained about the alleged stalling defect, which was documented in the repair records by a repair technician, stating "the Vehicle would ‘shut itself off electronically and motor will cut off. Customer will have to turn vehicle back on.’ " ECF No. 27-1, at 2-3 (citing Blasjo Decl., ¶ 35).
Plaintiffs brought the Subject Vehicle to "Defendant's authorized repair facility for ongoing concerns including the stop start not working and stalling." ECF No. 12, at 4.
Plaintiffs further argue that the requested discovery is relevant to their claims for penalties and punitive damages. ECF No. 12, at 18. Under Song-Beverly, "[i]f the buyer establishes that the failure to comply [with the Act] was willful ," the buyer may be entitled to receive a civil penalty, up to two times the amount of actual damages." Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(c) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs correctly argue that "critical to the analysis of ‘willfulness’ in a case under ["Song-Beverly"] is whether the defendant was previously aware of a defect." ECF No. 27-22, at 7; see also Bishop v. Hyundai Motor Am., 44 Cal. App. 4th 750, 759, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 134 (1996) (willfulness requires a showing that defendant knew of its obligations under Song-Beverly but declined to fulfil them). As such, discovery regarding Defendants' knowledge of Stalling Defects in Chrysler Pacifica vehicles is relevant to the instant litigation.
Plaintiff rebuts Defendant's argument that this is a "fishing expedition" by noting that there was a November 20, 2017 New York Times article discussing growing concerns from Chrysler Pacifica owners regarding the vehicle's tendency to suddenly lose power, have the power steering fail, and the vehicle to shut off, [ECF No. 27-3, at 10; see also ECF No. 27-12], and because numerous individuals have similar actions "in California state court, represented by over 23 different firms, based on the allegedly defective vehicle exhibiting the same stalling or loss of power concern." ECF No. 27-3, at 6.
Defendant also argues that the requested discovery is an "enormous" "burden on FCA US" and "not proportional to this matter." ECF No. 28, at 4. Defendant is correct that under Rule 26(b)(1) "[r]elevancy alone is no longer sufficient—discovery must also be proportional to the needs of the case ... [¶] The inquiry to be conducted under the proportionality requirement ... requires input from both sides." Medicinova Inc. v. Genzyme Corp., Case No. 14cv2513-L-KSC, 2017 WL 2829691, at *5 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2017) (citing In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, 317 F.R.D. 562, 564 (D. Ariz. 2016) ). As explained by the Advisory Committee's notes to the 2015 amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), "[a] party claiming undue burden or expense ordinarily has far better information—perhaps the only information—with respect to that part of the determination." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) advisory committee's note (2015 amendments); see also Lofton v. Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, 308 F.R.D. 276, 281 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ("the party opposing discovery bears the burden of showing that discovery should not be allowed, and of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections with competent evidence."). However, "[a] party claiming that a request is important to resolve the issue should be able to explain the ways in which the underlying information bears on the issues as that party understands them." Id.; see also Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., Case No. 5:13cv4057-BLF, 2016 WL 146574, at *1 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2016) ("A party seeking discovery of relevant, non-privileged information must show, before anything else, that the discovery sought is proportional to the needs of the case."). Determining proportionality requires the court to "us[e] all the information provided by the parties" to reach a "case-specific determination of the appropriate scope of discovery." Id.
Here, as discussed above, Plaintiffs' requested discovery is directly relevant to their claims regarding the Stalling Defect and appropriate damages, including when Defendant first learned of the Stalling Defect, ECF No. 27-18, at 8 (ROG No. 11), information about any actions or investigations regarding the Stalling Defect, id., at 9 (ROG No. 12), Defendant's assessments of the Stalling Defect, id., at 11 (ROG No. 14), and which databases possessed by Defendant contain electronically stored information ("ESI") regarding the Stalling Defect, id., at 12 (ROG No. 15). ECF No. 27-18, at 8-9, 11-12. Plaintiffs explain in their moving papers why the requested discovery is relevant, necessary, and proportional. ECF No. 27-1. Defendant, on the other hand, does not provide any specific information supporting its claim that the requested discovery is an enormous burden that is not proportional to the case. ECF No. 28. Despite Defendant being in the best position to provide specific information regarding why Plaintiffs' requests are an undue burden, Defendant largely provides Plaintiffs—and this Court—with insufficient boilerplate language. Id. As such, the Court finds that Defendant has not satisfied its burden of proving that the Stalling Defect discovery, which the Court has determined is relevant to this case, is unduly burdensome or disproportional to the needs of this case. Defendant is ordered to supplement its discovery responses accordingly.
The parties' disagreement regarding the Stalling Defect discovery also prevented them from agreeing on the databases and custodians to be searched and the search terms to be used. For example, Defendant stated in its supplemental response that "FCA US has already done those specific searches [CAIR, GWS, and field report databases], limited to those issues experienced by Plaintiffs as evidenced by the Subject Vehicle's repair orders". ECF No. 28, at 10. Similarly, Plaintiffs contend that FCA refuses to use search terms such as ‘stall,’ ‘loss of power,’ ‘shut down,’ etc." Id., at 7. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that "there is no reason to limit searches to California vehicles[ ]" and request instead a search "with a nationwide scope". Id., at fn 9. Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel does not specifically address Plaintiffs' proposed search terms or geographic range. Instead, Defendant argues that "FCA US contends that discovery regarding issues that Plaintiffs never experienced nor complained of is not relevant and not proportional to the needs of this case." ECF No. 28, at 10. Given the Court's ruling regarding the scope of discovery, the Court finds that Defendant's positions regarding databases, custodians, and search terms also are impermissibly limited. The Court also finds that the correct geographical limitation is the United States, not California. See Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 328 F.R.D. 557, 564 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (finding no reason to limit database searches for defective BMW vehicles geographically to Southern California or any other specific region).
In summary, the Court finds that discovery regarding the alleged Stalling Defect is relevant to Plaintiffs' claims in this case and proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant is ordered to supplement its discovery responses to include information and documents regarding Stalling Defects in 2018 Chrysler Pacifica vehicles in the United States. Defendant also is ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiffs and modify its search terms, custodians and databases to ensure that it is producing all responsive and relevant information, including information relating to the Stalling Defect.
B. The Moran Class Action Documents
Plaintiffs' final contention centers around the production of documents related to Moran v. FCA US LLC ("Moran Class Action" or "Moran"). ECF No 27-1, at 8; see also Moran v. FCA US LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17cv2594-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal). Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel requests "[t]o the extent FCA produced documents that are responsive to Plaintiffs' RFPs in the Moran matter, those same documents should be produced here." ECF No. 27-1, at 8 (citing Jensen, 328 F.R.D. 557, 563 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (documents already collected and produced in a separate case can be produced in a new case if the requests target relevant information, the burden to produce the documents is small, and the documents are responsive to the requests at issue)). Plaintiffs assert that the Moran Class Action concerns a "Stalling Defect" which "is caused by a loss of engine timing, including a loss of crankshaft position synchronization, which is controlled by the Powertrain Control Module" and that the "allegations [in this case] are nearly coextensive with the defect allegations of the Moran class action." Id., at 8-9. Defendant acknowledges that "the Moran Class Action concerns certain 2017-2018 Chrysler Pacifica vehicles alleging an issue related to engine stalling at low speeds." ECF No. 27-13, at 1. However, Defendant argues that "Plaintiffs never experienced anything related to that issue" and thus "the documents produced [in] Moran have absolutely no relevance in this matter." ECF No. 28, at 8-9. Further, Defendant argues the documents produced in Moran "could not be produced absent a protective order that incorporated the terms of the protective order entered in the Federal class action." ECF No. 28, at 8.
Because the Court has determined that Stalling Defect discovery is relevant to the claims in this case and proportional to the needs of the case, Defendant must supplement its discovery responses to include the Stalling Defect discovery. Plaintiff may not simply request every document produced in the Moran litigation but if documents that are responsive to Plaintiffs' discovery requests also were produced in the Moran Class Action, Defendant must produce them in this case. If Defendant needs an additional or modified protective order, Defendant must work with the necessary parties to craft a new protective order.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as set forth above. The Court finds the alleged Stalling Defect is relevant to Plaintiffs' claims and proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant is ordered to supplement its discovery responses by May 28, 2021 to incorporate the Stalling Defect allegations in accordance with this Order.