Troy Fraser et al vs Ford Motor Company et al

Case Number

22CV04540

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 02/23/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion to Compel

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

1. The motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents Nos. 1, 3, 17, 103, 104, 105, and 115 is granted.
   1. Request No. 115 will be limited in time to encompass 2021 to the date of production.
   2. Ford shall provide further code-compliant verified responses, without objections other than as to privilege, no later than March 15, 2024.
   3. Should any documents be withheld on claim of privilege, Ford shall serve a privilege log identifying each responsive document withheld on the grounds of privilege together with sufficient additional information pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240.
2. The motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents Nos. 12, 19, 21, 33, 37, 40, 46, 48, 60, 64, 67, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, and 130 is denied.

Background: Plaintiffs’ complaint, filed November 16, 2022, alleges that plaintiffs entered into a warranty contract with defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford) regarding a 2021 Ford Mustang which Ford had manufactured and distributed. Plaintiffs allege that defects and nonconformities to the warranty manifested within the express warranty period, including, but not limited to, transmission defects, that the defects substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the vehicle, and the value of the vehicle is therefore worthless or de minimis. While Ford had an affirmative duty to promptly offer to repurchase or replace the vehicle when it failed to conform the vehicle to the terms of the express warranty after a reasonably number of repair attempts, it has failed to do so. The complaint alleges causes of action against Ford for (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(d), (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(b), (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(a)(3), and (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The statutory violations alleged are violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

On January 25, 2023, plaintiffs served Ford requests for production of documents (set one). (Smith Dec., ¶ 19 & Exh. 6.) Ford responded to the requests on February 28, 2023. (Smith Dec., ¶ 22 & Exh. 7.) On September 1, 2023, Ford served supplemental responses to the requests. (Smith Dec., ¶ 23 & Exh. 8.)

Plaintiffs now move to compel further responses to 35 of the requests. Ford opposes the motion arguing that it has provided code-compliant responses.

ANALYSIS:

As an initial matter, declarations submitted by both parties’ counsel are replete with argument and matters about which counsel would have no personal knowledge. As has been specifically brought to the attention of plaintiffs’ counsel on previous occasions, in other cases filed in this court: “We recognize that it is very common for [attorneys] to include argument in their declarations (we know it is done all the time, and we do not want to single out the trial lawyers in this regard), but it is a sloppy practice which should stop. Even at its most benign, it is a practice that forces the trial and appellate courts, and opposing counsel, to sort out the facts that are actually supported by oath from material that is nothing more than the statement of an opinion ostensibly under oath. More fundamentally, however, it makes a mockery of the requirement that declarations be supported by statements made under penalty of perjury. The proper place for argument is in points and authorities, not declarations.” (In re Marriage of Heggie (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 28, 30, fn. 3.)

In addition to the arguments contained in the declaration of counsel, both sides make multiple representations based on review of records and conversations with others. An attorney is competent to recite events occurring during the course of the litigation. An attorney’s declaration of what the client’s testimony would be, based on the attorney’s discussion with the client and an investigation of the facts, is not competent. (See Donnelly v. Ayer (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 978, 984.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel is clearly aware of this authority as they themselves quote it in their evidentiary objections. Counsel for both parties are again reminded that their practice of including, in their declarations, legal argument and matters of which they do not have personal knowledge should stop. The court will disregard the legal arguments and matters upon which the attorneys would have no personal knowledge.

Additionally, plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion is 13 pages long.  “A memorandum that exceeds 10 pages must include a table of contents and a table of authorities. A memorandum that exceeds 15 pages must also include an opening summary of argument.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(f).) Plaintiffs’ memorandum does not include a table of contents or a table of authorities.

Plaintiffs’ counsel will be reminded, as they have been reminded in past cases before this court, of the requirement to comply with the Rules of Court.

            Standards on Motion to Compel

“A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery, may not use its discretion to extend the limits on discovery beyond those authorized by the Legislature, and should prefer partial to outright denials of discovery.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.010 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.

“(b) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.”

“The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:

“(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . .

“(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item, or

“(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.240, provides:

“(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.

“(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

“(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.

“(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.

“(c)(1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

“(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.”

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for production of documents “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) To establish good cause, the burden is on the moving party to make a “fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

            Meet and Confer

Ford argues that plaintiffs have failed to meet and confer in good faith regarding the issues presented by the current motion to compel.

“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040, italics added.) “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate . . . . involves the exercise of discretion.”  (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.)

The court has reviewed the 31-page meet and confer letter. Plaintiffs’ meet and confer letter is quite obviously a form letter, that is familiar to the court, primarily discussing the validity of objections in general, which has been slightly modified to address the responses in dispute. While the meet and confer letter could be much more specific regarding the individual requests, rather than a discourse on objections in general, plaintiffs did address all of the disputed requests. As such, the court will find the meet and confer efforts just sufficient.

            Requests Nos. 1, 3, 12, and 17

Plaintiffs claim that these requests seek documents concerning the 2021 Ford Mustang, VIN number 1FA6P8TH9M5111621, that is the subject of this action. Despite plaintiffs’ argument to the contrary, request 12 is not limited to the subject vehicle. Request 12 asks for documents made available to purchasers or lessees of Ford vehicles equipped with the same model transmission as the subject vehicle.

Ford responded to request No. 1, which seeks all documents regarding the subject vehicle maintained in Ford’s databases, with some objections and a list of documents it was willing to produce. In supplementing the response, Ford offered to produce additional documents. Ford argues that the production is complete. A review of Ford’s supplemental responses shows that Ford stated it “will produce all documents responsive to this Request that are located following a reasonable and diligent search and to which no objection is made.”

Ford responded to request No. 3, which seeks all investigations, reports, and studies conducted by Ford or on Ford’s behalf regarding the root cause or failure analysis of any parts that were repaired or replaced on the subject vehicle, with objections. Ford did not agree to produce any responsive documents.

Ford responded to request No. 12, which, as noted above, seeks documents made available to purchasers or lessees of Ford vehicles equipped with the same model transmission as the subject vehicle, with objections and a representation that it would produce a representative showroom brochure applicable to the subject vehicle. In its supplemental response, Ford agreed to produce all documents responsive to the request that are located following a reasonable and diligent search and to which no objection is made.

Request No. 17 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including live telephone call recordings, audio recordings, tape recordings, voice messaging records, caller message recordings, digital voice recordings, interactive voice response unit (IVR/VRV) recordings, unified messaging files, transcripts, e-mails, and computer-based voice mail files regarding any repairs, complaints, problems, surveys, regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” Ford responded with objections and a representation that it has not located any audio, voicemail, or voice recordings at this time. By way of supplemental response, Ford agreed to produce all documents responsive to the request that are located following a reasonable and diligent search and to which no objection is made.

Plaintiffs argument regarding further responses to these four categories of requests is:

“This request seeks documents and information concerning the Subject Vehicle itself, defined as the “ ‘2021 Ford Mustang vehicle identification number 1FA6P8TH9M5111621, which is the subject of this lawsuit.’ ” These documents are indisputably relevant to Plaintiff’s SBA and negligent repair claims. See Krotin v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., 38 Cal. App. 4th 294, 303 (1995) (an automobile manufacturer’s “ ‘dealers’ service records’ ” are probative of whether a particular vehicle is defective). And see Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 328 F.R.D. 557, 562 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (“records concerning the specific vehicle at issue” are relevant to proving liability under the SBA).

“Further, Defendant’s boilerplate objections are without merit, as explained above.

“Finally, Defendant’s response does not comply with the Code, as explained above.” (Plaintiffs’ SS, p. 18, ll. 19-27.)

Ford has not justified its objections to requests Nos. 1, 3, or 17. The documents sought are simply related to the subject vehicle. Facially, documents relating to the specific vehicle at issue would be relevant. And because they are related solely to the vehicle at issue, the requests are not overly broad. Ford’s objections to the requests, except as to privilege, will be overruled and Ford will be ordered to provide code-compliant responses, specifically following the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210, et seq., without objections except as to privilege. To the extent that Ford has produced all responsive documents, Ford shall unambiguously state that it has.

Should any documents be withheld on claim of privilege, Ford shall serve a privilege log identifying each responsive document withheld on the grounds of privilege together with sufficient additional information, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240.

With respect to request No. 12, the court finds Ford’s objections have merit. Request No. 12 reads: “All pre-sale or pre-purchase DOCUMENTS that YOU made available to purchasers or lessees of Ford Vehicles equipped with the same 6R80 transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE, concerning the disclosure of a problem, failures, malfunctions, or defect(s) in Ford Vehicles equipped with the same 6R80 transmission as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” The request is grossly overbroad in that it is not limited in time, is not limited to the specific defects alleged in this case, and it is not geographically limited. The request could potentially encompass irrelevant documents from multiple countries and in multiple languages. Plaintiffs have failed to make a fact specific showing of relevance. A further response to request No. 12 will not be ordered.

            Requests Nos. 19, 21, 33, 37, 40, 46, 48, 60, 64, and 67

These requests for production seek documents concerning Ford’s knowledge of and internal analysis regarding “transmission defects” and “engine defects” in Ford vehicles equipped with the same transmission or engine as the subject vehicle.

As an example, Request No. 19 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and e-mails, concerning any internal analysis or investigations by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S) in Ford vehicles equipped with the same 6R80 transmission as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request shall be interpreted to include investigation and analysis to determine the root cause of such TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S), any such investigation to implementing a countermeasure or permanent repair procedure for such TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S), any such investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with such TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S), any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedure, any savings analysis for not implementing proposed repair procedures, etc. [This Request requires Defendant to produce all associated DOCUMENTS, including metadata where applicable, by the Custodian’s name, job title, and job description.]”

“Transmission defect” is defined in the requests as: “one or more defect(s) that can cause FORD VEHICLES to experience hesitation and/or delayed acceleration; harsh and/or hard shifting; jerking, shuddering, and/or juddering; symptoms requiring reprogramming of the transmission control module (“ ‘TCM’ ”) and/or powertrain control module (“ ‘PCM’ ”); failure and/or replacement of the transmission; and/or any other similar concern identified in the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s repair history.”

“Engine defect” is defined as “one or more defect(s) in the 2.3L I4 310hp Engine which result in symptoms, including: engine noise/rattle or rough idle; failure and/or replacement of variable camshaft timing (VCT) unit, VCT phasers, VCT solenoid, and/or other engine components, as well as, reprogramming of the powertrain control module (PCM); and/or any other similar concern identified in the repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Ford responded, not conceding that a transmission or engine defect existed in the subject vehicle, with objections and a representation that it would produce “a List of Technical Service Bulletins (“ ‘TSBs’ ”), Special Service Messages (“ ‘SSMs’ ”), and General Service Bulletins (“ ‘GSBs’ ”) applicable to 2021 Ford Mustang vehicles, in general, including TSB 22-2139, which was performed on the subject vehicle. Ford will produce specific TSBs, SSMs and GSBs requested by Plaintiffs provided they are related to the allegations in the case. Ford also will produce the Field Service Action (“ ‘FSA’ ”) history applicable to the subject 2021 Ford Mustang vehicle, which identifies recalls and customer satisfaction programs applicable to the subject vehicle. Otherwise, information relating to recalls is publicly available to Plaintiffs and thus Ford will produce the NHTSA website at www.safercar.gov.” Ford’s supplemental responses to these interrogatories are substantially the same as the original responses.

As worded, the requests are grossly overbroad in that they are not limited in time, not limited to the specific defects alleged in this case and are not geographically limited. Plaintiffs have not met their burden of making a fact specific showing of relevance. As such, no further responses to these requests will be ordered.

            Requests Nos. 81, 83, 84, 86, and 87

These requests for production seek documents concerning summaries, memorandum, and power points related to alleged transmission and engine defects.

As an example, request No. 81 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including power points, memoranda, reports, warnings, investigations, assessments, engineering reviews, summaries, executive reviews, executive summaries, etc., that were prepared by any of YOUR engineers, concerning the TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S) in Ford Vehicles that are equipped with the same 6R80 transmission as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Ford objected to the requests “as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking irrelevant information because it is not limited to a reasonable or relevant timeframe, to the subject vehicle, to any particular vehicle make, model or model year, to any particular power point, memoranda, report, warning, investigation, assessment, review or summary, to any particular individual or department, to any particular complaint or concern, to the components or systems at issue, or to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and because Plaintiffs’ request for all documents does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. Ford also objects to this Request because the subject vehicle in this case is not equipped with a 6R80 transmission.” Ford further objected that the “definition of “ ‘transmission defect’ ” includes any defect relating to the transmission whatsoever, whether or not such defect has any relation to the issues alleged to have been experienced by Plaintiffs, and which could arise for various reasons, including due to improper use, maintenance or servicing of the vehicle, or due to the actions of third parties. The term “ ‘transmission defect’ ” also includes symptoms or concerns that are unrelated to the symptoms or concerns alleged by Plaintiffs or as described in the subject vehicle’s warranty, service or repair records or Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Further, this term seeks information regarding vehicle concerns in vehicles other than the subject vehicle, which are not at issue in this case, and which may be substantially dissimilar to those in this litigation.”

The court finds that these requests are improper for the same reasons as discussed above. As worded, the requests are grossly overbroad in that they are not limited in time, not limited to the specific defects alleged in this case and are not geographically limited. Plaintiffs have not met their burden of making a fact specific showing of relevance. As such, no further responses to these requests will be ordered.

            Requests Nos. 103, 104, 105, and 115

These requests seek documents concerning Ford’s buyback policies and procedure.

For example, request No . 103 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS that YOU use or have used, since 2021, to evaluate consumer requests for repurchases pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.”

Ford responded to the requests with:

“Ford will comply with this Request in part, and produce all documents responsive to this Request that are located following a reasonable and diligent search and to which no objection is made. Accordingly, each repurchase request is unique to each customer and each vehicle. The facts and circumstances surrounding vehicle repurchases vary widely depending on any number of factors, such as owner use, operation, and maintenance. Accordingly, there is no single set of documents that may be analyzed; however, Ford refers Plaintiffs to the Owner’s Guide, Scheduled Maintenance Guide and Warranty Guide 2021 Ford Mustang, which are available for viewing and/or download at no charge at https://owner.ford.com/tools/account/how-tos/owner-manuals.html and/or https://owner.ford.com/tools/account/maintenance/maintenance-schedule.h… for examples of which documents may be related to policies and procedures involved in deciding whether to offer a vehicle repurchase or replacement. Ford also refers Plaintiffs to information regarding California law available at www.bbb.org/autoline/bbb-auto-line-state-laws/california-lemonlaw-infor…, including the internal links, which contain information responsive to this Request.

“Beyond this, Ford objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeking irrelevant documents because it is not limited to a reasonable or relevant timeframe, to the subject vehicle, to any particular request for repurchase, to the components or systems at issue, or to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Further, Plaintiffs’ request for all documents does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. In addition, this is a lemon law case under Cal. Civil Code § 1790 et seq., and the subject matter of this case revolves exclusively around the subject vehicle. Repurchases or replacements are unique to each customer and each vehicle. The facts and circumstances surrounding vehicle repurchases or replacements vary widely depending on any number of factors, such as owner use, operation, and maintenance. Accordingly, the documents available or made available may vary or differ depending on the facts and circumstances of a repurchase request.

“Ford further objects to this Request because it seeks documents and information protected from disclosure by the work product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege, as this Request could seek documents that reflect the legal advice, mental impressions, and legal strategies prepared for anticipated or pending litigation by Ford’s attorneys, Ford’s Office of the General Counsel, or those working under their direction or supervision.”

Plaintiffs argue by way of their separate statement: “This request seeks documents and information concerning Defendant’s Lemon Law, warranty, and recall policies and procedures. Courts have repeatedly found these documents relevant to SBA claims. See Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, 136 (1995), as modified on denial of reh’g (June 22, 1995) (“whether the manufacturer had a written policy on the requirement to repair or replace” is one of “the factors to be considered by the jury” concerning whether defendant willfully violated the SBA); Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc., 23 Cal. App. 4th 174, 186 (1994) (“Whether the lack of a written policy demonstrates [defendant’s willful violation of the SBA] is a question to be answered by a properly instructed jury ….”).

Ford argued, in response to requests Nos. 103, 104, 105, and 115, it “properly referred Plaintiff to the Owner’s Guide, Scheduled Maintenance Guide, and Warranty Guide for the 2021 Ford Mustang, for examples of which documents may be related to policies and procedures involved in deciding whether to offer a vehicle repurchase or replacement. Further, Ford agreed to produce its confidential policy and procedure materials, including Ford’s Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual, policies and procedures for Ford’s customer relationship center (“ ‘CRC’ ”), and Ford’s RAV Policy & Procedure Manual for 2022 because 2022 is the year Plaintiffs requested a repurchase or replacement of the subject vehicle from Ford.”

Facially, the documents requested in Nos. 103, 104, 105, and 115 appear relevant to this action and are discoverable. The requests are reasonably limited in time except as to request No. 115. Ford’s objections to the requests, except as to privilege, will be overruled and Ford will be ordered to provide code-compliant responses, specifically following the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210, et seq., without objections except as to privilege. Request No. 115 will be limited in time to encompass 2021 to the date of production. To the extent that Ford has produced all responsive documents, Ford shall unambiguously state that they have.

Should any documents be withheld on claim of privilege, Ford shall serve a privilege log identifying each responsive document withheld on the grounds of privilege together with sufficient additional information, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240.

            Requests Nos. 116 and 117

Request No. 116 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including ESI, setting forth YOUR document retention policy from 2021 to the present, including retention policies for electronic data and communications.”

Request No. 117 seeks: “YOUR recall policies and procedures.”

Ford essentially objected to the requests as being “overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking irrelevant information because it is not limited to a reasonable or relevant timeframe, to the subject vehicle, to any particular policy or procedure, to any particular recall, to any particular complaint or concern, to the components or systems at issue, or to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.”

The court fails to see how Ford’s document retention policies or recall policies and procedures, in extremely general terms, would be relevant to the claims in this matter, and plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of a fact-specific showing of relevancy. No further responses to requests Nos. 116 and 117 will be ordered.

            Requests Nos. 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, and 130

These requests seek documents concerning communications with governmental agencies and suppliers regarding transmission and engine defects in Ford vehicles.

For example, request No. 120 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, regarding any communications between YOU and any government agency or entity (e.g., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“ ‘NHTSA’ ”), the Environmental Protection Agency (“ ‘EPA’ ”), or any other similar government agency) regarding TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S) in Ford Vehicles that are equipped with the same 6R80 transmission as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Plaintiffs incorrectly claim that the requests are limited to 2021 Ford Mustang vehicles. (Motion to Compel, p. 2, ll. 5-7; also, Plaintiff’s Separate Statement.) The requests are clearly not limited solely to 2021 Ford Mustangs.

For most of its responses, Ford, without conceding any defects, asserted objections and agreed to produce “the Field Service Action (“ ‘FSA’ ”) history applicable to the subject 2021 Ford Mustang vehicle, which identifies recalls and customer satisfaction programs applicable to the subject vehicle. Otherwise, information relating to recalls including certain communications with NHTSA is publicly available to Plaintiffs and thus Ford will produce the NHTSA website at www.safercar.gov.”

These requests are improper for the same reasons as stated above and Ford’s objections that the requests are overly broad and seek irrelevant documents are well founded. As worded, the requests are grossly overbroad in that they are not limited in time, not limited to the specific defects alleged in this case and are not geographically limited. Plaintiffs have not met their burden of making a fact specific showing of relevance. As such, no further responses to these requests will be ordered.

Neither party has requested sanctions, and none will be ordered.