Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00103/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00103-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

18cv103-WQH (NLS)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL JENSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC; 

BRECHT ENTERPRISES, INC. dba 

BMW OF ESCONDIDO; and DOES 1-

100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv103-WQH (NLS)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT’S 

ORDER AND FOR PROSPECTIVE 

SANCTIONS; and

(2) DENYING EX PARTE MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 

[ECF Nos. 61, 73]

Before the Court is the Plaintiff Michael Jensen’s motion to compel Defendant 

BMW of North America, LLC (“BMW”) to comply with the Court’s previous order and 

for prospective sanctions. ECF No. 61. BMW filed an opposition, and Plaintiff filed a 

reply. ECF Nos. 65, 66. Plaintiff also filed a related ex parte motion to file a 

supplemental brief. ECF No. 73. After due consideration of the parties’ arguments and 

Case 3:18-cv-00103-WQH-NLS Document 77 Filed 04/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 11
2

18cv103-WQH (NLS)

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

for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

Plaintiff’s motion for compliance and sanctions and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave 

to file a supplemental brief. 

I. BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he purchased a 2011 BMW 550i vehicle 

manufactured and distributed by BMW, which was covered by an express written 

warranty for the utility and performance of the vehicle for a period of time. ECF No. 1-3

at ¶¶ 8-9. Plaintiff alleges that, during the warranty period, he experienced numerous 

defects with the vehicle. Id. at ¶ 10. He claims that Defendants were unable to 

adequately repair the defects but failed to replace the vehicle or buy it back. Id. at ¶ 11. 

Plaintiff brings causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for 

breach of warranty, and for fraud. 

On November 30, 2018, the parties brought a joint motion for determination of 

discovery dispute, where Plaintiff sought to compel BMW to respond to several 

discovery requests. ECF No. 49. After supplemental briefing was completed, the Court 

issued an order on January 15, 2019, directing BMW to produce certain documents 

within a certain timeframe. ECF No. 55. Plaintiff now seeks to compel compliance with

this January 15 order. 

II. DISCUSSION

Before turning to the substance of the documents at issue, the Court will first 

address a few preliminary matters. BMW argues throughout its opposition that the 

discovery obligations imposed by the Court’s January 15 order are disproportionate and 

unduly burdensome. See, e.g., ECF No. 65 at 2, 8 (“In the weeks following this Court’s 

ruling, it became apparent to BMW NA that the scope of the Order exceeds the 

permissible bounds under Rule 26.”); ECF No. 61-23. As to the individual requests, 

BMW blames some of the delay in production on the burden imposed by the Court’s 

order. 

While BMW is free to disagree with the Court’s prior ruling, deadlines were 

Case 3:18-cv-00103-WQH-NLS Document 77 Filed 04/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 11
3

18cv103-WQH (NLS)

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

imposed in that order that BMW admits it missed. There were remedies that BMW could 

have sought to obtain relief from that Order, if BMW believed it was warranted. See e.g., 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Local Civ. R. 7.1; Judge Stormes’s Civil Case Procedures, Section III. 

However, BMW did not seek such relief. Instead, BMW failed to abide by the Court’s 

deadline without explanation. The Court entered the prior order on January 15, 2019 and 

most of the discovery ordered was to be produced within 3 weeks of the order, i.e. by 

February 5, 2019—making this discovery overdue by over two months now. 

In light of this delay and the representations made by Plaintiff in the reply that the 

documents have still not yet been produced, the Court finds that imposition of 

prospective sanctions is appropriate in order to ensure compliance going forward. The 

Ninth Circuit has held that “magistrates may impose prospective sanctions pursuant to 

Rule 37 where such sanctions are necessary to enforce compliance with a valid discovery 

order.” Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991)

(awarding prospective sanctions where Defendant failed to answer interrogatories 

causing “unnecessary delay and expense, and its willful disobedience of the magistrate’s 

orders threatened the court’s integrity”). Indeed, several district courts within this circuit 

have found such sanctions appropriate. See United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 994 

(9th Cir. 1999) (upholding district court order to impose fine of $500 per day for failure 

to testify or produce documents after a 10-day grace period); United States v. Bright, No. 

07-cv-311-ACK (KSC), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15915, *40 (D. Haw. June 4, 2009) 

($500 per day fine imposed until party produced documents); Facebook, Inc. v. Power 

Ventures, Inc., No. 08-CV-05780-LHK, 2017 WL 3394754, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 

2017) (imposing $100 per day fine after 5 day grace period for failure to pay discovery 

sanction); Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. Nev. New Builds, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-00912-JADVCF, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221574, at *4-5 (D. Nev. Dec. 7, 2017) (imposing fines 

varying from $25-$100 per day for failures to respond to discovery). 

Turning to the documents at issue, Plaintiff’s motion raises issues related to several 

of the categories of documents discussed in the Court’s January 15 order. Accordingly, 

Case 3:18-cv-00103-WQH-NLS Document 77 Filed 04/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 11
4

18cv103-WQH (NLS)

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

the Court will summarize the holdings of that order as to each category of documents and 

address each in turn.

A. Database Searches 

First, Plaintiff seeks to compel BMW to produce documents from the PuMA 

database, the Customer Relations/Contacts database, and the Warranty Repair database. 

In the Court’s previous order, the Court ordered BMW to conduct a search across these 

three databases, limited to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s 

subject vehicle and limited to only those records reporting problems with the same defect 

codes listed in any repair records pertaining to Plaintiff’s vehicle and part numbers under 

warranty in Plaintiff’s vehicle. ECF No. 55 at 9-10. The Court furthered ordered the 

parties to meet and confer to determine what those defect codes and part numbers should 

be. Id. at 10. 

The parties subsequently did meet and confer as to defect codes and part numbers. 

See ECF No. 61-4, 61-7. As memorialized by Plaintiff in an email after the meet and 

confer, it appears the parties agreed that BMW would proceed as follows: 1) for part 

numbers, BMW would search for any parts replaced on the subject vehicle relating to 

service, repairs, or corrections made to address Plaintiff’s engine and air conditioning 

(“A/C”) complaints and include the part numbers of the old part and new replaced part; 

and 2) for defect codes, BMW would search for defect codes or defect item codes 

reported in the subject vehicle’swarranty history, the subject vehicle’s/Plaintiff’s Service

Request Detail documents, the subject vehicle’s repair orders, and reported/appearing in

technical service bulletins/SIBs/recalls that were applied to or applicable to the subject

vehicle, only with respect to addressing Plaintiff’s engine and A/C complaints. ECF No. 

61-7 at 3-4. The next relevant correspondence appears to be on February 5, 2019, when 

counsel for BMW informed Plaintiff that the search generated 85,000 hits. ECF No. 61-

16. 

In its opposition, BMW states that it ran searches and did not turn up any results in 

the PuMA or Customer Relations/Contacts databases. ECF No. 65 at 6. BMW states that 

Case 3:18-cv-00103-WQH-NLS Document 77 Filed 04/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 11
5

18cv103-WQH (NLS)

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

the search on the Warranty Repair database yielded 83,000 hits, which are currently 

undergoing review and will be produced once review is completed. Id. In response, 

Plaintiff questions the searches conducted, in particular with regard to the zero results in 

the PuMA or Customer Relations/Contacts databases. ECF No. 67 at 3-4. Specifically, 

Plaintiff’s counsel states that they are in possession of documents from at least the 

Customer Relations/Contacts database from other clients that they believe should have 

produced hits from the searches. See ECF Nos. 67-5-67-9. 

As to these documents, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. While BMW 

represents that it is complying with the Court’s previous order, the time for compliance is 

long overdue. At this point in time, BMW has had almost three months to comply since 

the Court’s January 15 Order. BMW attempts to blame the delay on Plaintiff, stating that 

he should have agreed to limit the search. The Court rejects this position—BMW was the 

party under Court order to produce and should have conducted its search bearing in mind 

the Court’s deadlines and accounted for the time it would to review the results.1 

In addition, Plaintiff’s reply at least raises a question about why certain results may

been missed by BMW’s searches. The Court does not have sufficient knowledge of 

BMW’s databases or the part numbers/defect codes to conclude whether these results 

should have produced hits, but finds it appropriate for BMW to investigate Plaintiff’s 

allegations as to why the searches did not produce hits for these records in the PuMA or 

Customer Relations/Contacts databases. The Court also agrees with Plaintiff that there 

should be more transparency into the searches of its databases run by BMW that would 

allow the parties and the Court to feel more confident that the searches are adequate. 

Thus, upon completion of the production, BMW shall file a signed declaration, under the 

 

1

Indeed, in prior briefing to the Court, BMW was not shy about detailing to the Court 

how burdensome it would be to manually review vehicle records. See ECF No. 49-37 at 

18-19. Once BMW knew it was under Court order to run these searches on January 15, it

could have foreseen that the searches may result in a number of hits and that it may need 

to review these records before producing them. 

Case 3:18-cv-00103-WQH-NLS Document 77 Filed 04/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 11
6

18cv103-WQH (NLS)

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

penalty of perjury, from someone with knowledge of the searches, with at least the 

following information: 1) a list of part numbers and defect codes searched in each of the 

PuMA, Customer Relations/Contacts, and Warranty Repair databases; 2) a statement 

regarding how many records hit on the search terms and of these records, how many were 

deemed responsive for production; and 3) as for the PuMA or Customer 

Relations/Contacts databases, a) an explanation of why the records highlighted by 

Plaintiff in his reply did not produce hits; and b) if BMW concludes that the records 

should have produced hits and mistakenly did not, an explanation of the new search run 

and/or any other corrective measures taken to ensure the results are now accurate. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS BMW to complete this production and provide 

the required declaration(s) within two weeks of this order. Failure to comply with this 

order will result in a monetary sanction of $200 per day for this violation, for every day 

thereafter until production is complete and the declarations are provided. 

B. Emails Searches

Second, Plaintiff seeks to compel BMW to produce emails from certain of its 

engineers. ECF No. 61-1 at 17-20. During the previous briefing on the motion to 

compel, Plaintiff offered a compromise, which was to search the emails of Michael 

Murray and Roger Brown, two engineers who Plaintiff believed were responsible for the 

N63 engine at issue in his vehicle. ECF No. 54 at 4. The Court adopted this compromise 

into its order. ECF No. 55 at 11 (noting that “Plaintiff agreed to limit the search to only

two engineers (Michael Murray and Roger Brown) rather than the 6-10 originally

requested). The parties had previously disputed the search terms to use to search the 

emails. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and work cooperatively to 

develop a more robust search string to use. Id. at 12. 

Plaintiff argues in his motion that these search results have not yet been produced 

and that BMW has not been cooperating so that the parties can define search terms. As to 

the issue with search terms, BMW now states in its opposition that it is now “utilizing 

Plaintiff’s proposed searched terms to search Mr. Murray’s email.” ECF No. 65 at 5. 

Case 3:18-cv-00103-WQH-NLS Document 77 Filed 04/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 11
7

18cv103-WQH (NLS)

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

The Court founds that this is a satisfactory resolution to the dispute over search terms, but 

as with the other discovery, the due date for this production is long overdue. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS BMW to complete this production of Mr. Murray’s 

emails within two weeks of this order. Concurrently with the production, BMW shall file 

a signed declaration, under the penalty of perjury, from someone with knowledge on the 

search and state the exact terms used to conduct the search. Failure to comply with this 

order will result in a monetary sanction of $200 per day for this violation, for every day 

thereafter until production is complete and the declaration is provided. 

Plaintiff brings another issue with regard to the second engineer, Roger Brown. 

Despite requesting his email in its compromise position during prior briefing, Plaintiff 

states that he informed BMW before any searches were run that he was no longer 

interested in Mr. Brown’s email and now requests that the search be run on a different 

engineer. ECF No. 61-1 at 18-19; ECF No. 67 at 8-9. However, Plaintiff does not have a 

name in mind, and suggests that the production of Mr. Murray’s emails may trigger a 

name or that BMW should produce a list of its engineers that worked on the N63 engine, 

run the search on these engineer’s emails and produce the number of hits for each, and 

that Plaintiff would pick a name from that list. ECF No. 61-1 at 19. At this juncture in 

the case—where fact discovery and expert discovery are both closed (see ECF Nos. 24, 

34)—the Court does not find it appropriate to enlarge its previous discovery order, even 

if it is to substitute in another email custodian, whose identity is not yet determined. 

Accordingly, the request to search a second custodian’s email is DENIED.

C. Bang Litigation Documents 

Third, Plaintiff seeks to compel BMW to produce documents from the Bang 

litigation. ECF No. 61-1 at 21-22. The Court had previously ordered BMW to produce 

documents already produced and collected during the Bang litigation that would be 

responsive to the requests in this case. ECF No. 55 at 9. This ruling was premised on 

BMW’s own statement that it “could provide the same or similar documents produced in 

other cases,” including the Bang litigation, as long as a protective order was in place. 

Case 3:18-cv-00103-WQH-NLS Document 77 Filed 04/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 11
8

18cv103-WQH (NLS)

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

ECF No. 53 at 5. This production was also supposed to take place within three weeks of 

the January 15 order. A protective order was entered by the Court on January 25, 2019. 

ECF No. 57. 

BMW now states that it went through all the Bang litigation documents and 

identified the documents that are responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests in this case. 

ECF No. 65-2 at ¶ 10. BMW further represents that “[t]hose documents have been 

gathered and are being produced to Plaintiff,” including finalizing them for production. 

Id.; ECF No. 65 at 7. Since BMW represented on March 19, 2019, when it filed its 

opposition, that it was very close to production, the Court ORDERS BMW to produce 

these documents within 3 days of this order (if not already completed). Failure to do so 

will result in a monetary sanction of $100 per day for this violation, for every day 

thereafter until production is complete. Once produced, BMW must file with the Court a 

signed declaration, under the penalty of perjury, that the production on these documents 

is complete. 

D. Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual

Fourth, Plaintiff requests BMW to immediately produce the Warranty Policy and 

Procedure Manual applicable to his subject vehicle. ECF No. 61-1. The Court 

previously ordered BMW to produce the Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual within 

one week of the protective order being granted. ECF No. 55 at 14. A protective order

was entered by the Court on January 25, 2019. ECF No. 57. 

BMW states in its opposition that it “is producing” these documents and that no 

further Court intervention is needed but—yet again—fails to give any timeline for when 

the production will take place or why it has failed to produce the documents two months 

after the protective order was entered. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS BMW to 

produce these documents within 3 days of this order, and failure to do so will result in a 

monetary sanction of $100 per day for this violation, for every day thereafter until 

production is complete. Once produced, BMW must file with the Court a signed 

declaration, under the penalty of perjury, that the production on these documents is 

Case 3:18-cv-00103-WQH-NLS Document 77 Filed 04/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 11
9

18cv103-WQH (NLS)

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

complete. 

E. 30(b)(6) Deposition 

Finally, Plaintiff requests an opportunity to take a 30(b)(6) deposition on the 

documents and topics in dispute above. ECF No. 61-1 at 22-23. It appears from prior 

motion practice in front of the Court that the parties did take a deposition of BMW’s Rule 

30(b)(6) witness, Jose Conde, on September 6, 2018, but the witness did not answer any 

questions on the topics outside of those related directly to Plaintiff’s specific vehicle. 

ECF No. 38 at 3-4; ECF No. 49-37 at 3 (discussing how BMW’s witness failed to 

provide adequate testimony on categories 8-11, 17-20, 24, 25, and 27-38). Indeed, Mr. 

Conde’s refusal to testify on those categories was the subject of Plaintiff’s prior motion to 

compel. See ECF No. 49-38. Having been at issue in the motion, as BMW points out, 

the Court’s January 15 order addressed this issue directly: “Finally, while Plaintiff 

includes in this motion disputes over deposition topics on these defect issues, he does not 

appear to request more deposition time in his motion or in the proposed compromise. 

Accordingly, the Court declines to grant any additional deposition time.” ECF No. 55 at 

12. 

If Plaintiff took issue with this part of the Court’s order—as stated above for 

BMW—the proper remedy would be to seek relief from the Court based on an appeal or 

reconsideration of that order, not as a request in this motion to compel compliance. 

However, Plaintiff failed to do so. To the extent that Plaintiff argues that the deposition 

time he seeks is not within the scope of the Court’s prior order—because he does not seek 

“additional” time with a 30(b)(6) witness but rather time with a newly designated 

witness—the request is untimely given when the deposition was noticed and when the 

prior deposition was taken, where significantly more than 45 days have elapsed. Judge 

Stormes Civil Case Procedures, Section VI.C (requiring disputes to be brought to the 

Court within 45 days of the triggering event). Accordingly, the request for deposition 

time is DENIED. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s ex parte request for leave to file a supplemental brief (ECF 

Case 3:18-cv-00103-WQH-NLS Document 77 Filed 04/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 11
10

18cv103-WQH (NLS)

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

No. 73) to clarify the history regarding the 30(b)(6) deposition is DENIED. As discussed 

above, the Court was already aware of the prior deposition from the parties’ prior motion 

briefing and has already found that any new requests related to this issue would be 

untimely. 

F. Alternative Remedies

In Plaintiff’s reply, he suggests that the Court should adopt some other protective 

measures, such as staying this case until the production is complete, require a declaration 

from BMW on the searches that were run, and to order the parties to retain a special 

master to oversee production. ECF No. 67 at 10. Unless otherwise incorporated above, 

this request is DENIED. Discovery has been closed in this case for months and the 

Court previously found that the discovery sought here goes more to the question of 

willfulness rather than the central issue of liability (ECF No. 55 at 7-8). See ECF Nos. 

24, 34. The Court sees no good cause to order a special master to oversee discovery at 

this stage of the case. As for any request to extend the schedule in this case until 

production is complete, the Court declines to take such action—the Court has already 

ordered BMW to produce in a short timeframe and ordered prospective sanctions for 

failure to comply. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:18-cv-00103-WQH-NLS Document 77 Filed 04/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 11
11

18cv103-WQH (NLS)

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

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief. 

BMW is ordered to produce documents, as outlined above in this order. BMW is ordered 

to produce documents in accordance with this Order, and within the timeframe dictated 

herein.2 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2019

 

2 Should BMW fail to produce documents before sanctions start to accrue, the Court will 

address the logistics of collecting sanctions at that time. 

Case 3:18-cv-00103-WQH-NLS Document 77 Filed 04/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 11