Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01511/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01511-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Pasquale Venezia,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Bentley Motors, Inc.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-1511-PHX-SMM

ORDER

On May 13, 2008, the Court held a telephonic discovery dispute conference to address

two issues. The first pertained to Plaintiff’s request for documents associated with a recent

repair to Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff represented to the Court that this issue has been

resolved. The second pertained to Plaintiff’s Request for Production #4, which sought

manuals, policies, and other materials provided by Defendant to its authorized dealerships

regarding state and federal warranty laws or other procedures for vehicles subject to

numerous or lengthy repairs (“Dealership Documents”). 

Plaintiff asserts that the Dealership Documents are discoverable because they will

assist in determining the manufacturer-dealership relationship regarding warranty and

repairs. Defendant asserts that the Dealership Documents are not discoverable because the

actual communications regarding Plaintiff’s vehicle between Defendant and its dealership

have been produced. Defendant also asserts that, as briefed in its cross-motion for summary

judgment, communications between dealerships and manufacturers have no bearing on the

issue of notice and opportunity to cure. Both parties directed the Court’s attention to their

Case 2:07-cv-01511-SMM Document 73 Filed 05/13/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The Court expresses no opinion at this time as to either party’s cross-motion for

summary judgment.

2

 Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment provides the incorrect volume of the

Federal Supplement for the Radford case. The Court reminds the parties that correct citations

are needed in order for the Court to consider the cases cited in reliance of the parties’

propositions and arguments.

- 2 -

memoranda of law submitted in support of their cross-motions for summary judgment on the

issue of notice and opportunity to cure.

After reviewing the parties’ memoranda of law, the Court finds that the cases cited

therein do not definitively answer the present issue: whether the Dealership Documents

should be produced.1

 Plaintiff’s claims allege violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., and the Arizona “Lemon Law,” A.R.S. § 44-1261 et seq. The

Arizona Lemon Law allows for a presumption that a “reasonable number of attempts” to cure

a defect have been undertaken under certain circumstances. A.R.S. § 44-1264(A). That

presumption does not apply against a manufacturer, “unless the manufacturer has received

prior direct written notification from or on behalf of the consumer of the alleged defect and

has had an opportunity to cure the alleged defect.” Id. at § 44-1264(C)(emphasis added).

An issue presented in this matter, and in this dispute, is whether a dealership may provide

notice to the manufacturer “on behalf of the consumer.” 

None of the cases cited by Defendant involve the Arizona Lemon Law, nor do they

involve statutes which contain the “from or on behalf of the consumer” language. See

Culberson v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 616 S.E.2d 865 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005); Radford v.

Daimler Chrysler Corp., 168 F. Supp. 2d 751 (N.D. Ohio 2001);2 Cato v. Sam. Suzuki Motor

Corp., 622 N.W.2d 486 (Iowa 2001). Therefore the Court cannot determine that the

Dealership Documents have no bearing on the issue of notice and opportunity to cure.

Moreover, the Court is guided by the broad scope of discovery provided under the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Dealership Documents appear

“reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” that Defendant’s

Case 2:07-cv-01511-SMM Document 73 Filed 05/13/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

local dealership provided sufficient notice to Defendant on behalf of Plaintiff. Id.; A.R.S.

§ 44-1264(C). Plaintiff’s request will therefore be granted. Whether these documents have

any evidentiary value will be left for another day.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s request for production of the

Dealership Documents, as contained in Plaintiff’s Request for Production # 4.

DATED this 13th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01511-SMM Document 73 Filed 05/13/08 Page 3 of 3