Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01379/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01379-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLE TREW, on behalf of herself

and all others similarly situated,

and on behalf of the General

Public as a Private Attorney

General; LOREN FUNK, on behalf of

himself and all others similarly

situated; and JUDITH AND MATTHEW

WESLEY MARX, on behalf of

themselves and others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,

and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

CIV S-05-1379 DFL PAN 

ORDER 

-o0oDefendant Volvo moves to compel the inspection of

plaintiff Carole Trew’s vehicle pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34

and 37. Volvo propounded the request for inspection on October

12, 2005, to take place at Turner Volvo on November 14, 2005. As

Case 2:05-cv-01379-MCE -EFB Document 53 Filed 01/12/06 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

1 Defendant’s request for inspection provides in pertinent part that

“one or more certified Volvo technicians will perform the inspection by

conducting the following procedures: (1) test-driving the Vehicle in the

vicinity of Turner Volvo; (2) connecting the Vehicle to Volvo’s VITA and/or

VADIS computer diagnostic systems to determine whether any fault codes exist;

(3) monitoring the Vehicle’s throttle while the engine idles; (4) removing the

Vehicle’s Electronic Throttle Module from the intake manifold in a nondestructive manner, inspecting its component parts, and reinstalling it back

into the intake manifold; (5) photographing various components of the Vehicle,

including but not limited to the Vehicle’s Electronic Throttle Module; (6)

examining the Vehicle’s turbo valve fuel injection system, and electronic

control sensors and connectors to help determine whether the driving

irregularities alleged by plaintiff are based in fact, and if so, could be

associated with one of these parts/components malfunctioning; and (7) visually

examining the Vehicle for damage, misuse, abuse, collision, irregular wear and

tear, and incomplete or improper maintenance. The Vehicle will be returned to

its pre-inspection condition on the same day as the inspection, and will not

be destroyed or altered to its detriment. It may be necessary upon

reinstallation of the ETM, however, for Volvo to insert a new gasket between

the throttle body and the intake valve. Should this be necessary, Volvo will

pay for all costs and expenses associated with this improvement.”

2

required by Rule 34(b), the request set forth the items to be

inspected and described each with reasonable particularity.1 

Plaintiff objected on several grounds and the parties

have been unsuccessful in resolving their disputes regarding the

purpose, content and procedure for the inspection. The court

vacated the hearing on this matter, scheduled for January 11,

2006, and makes this order.

Volvo is entitled to inspect plaintiff’s vehicle. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 34(a), 26(b)(1) (“[p]arties may obtain discovery

regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the

claim or defense of any party”). Plaintiff’s argument the

condition of her vehicle is irrelevant to plaintiffs’ fraud

claims is shortsighted; defendant is entitled to pursue all

possible defenses, which necessarily requires inspection of

Case 2:05-cv-01379-MCE -EFB Document 53 Filed 01/12/06 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

3

plaintiff’s vehicle. (Plaintiff has not moved for a protective

order so discovery is not stayed pending a decision on Volvo’s

motion to dismiss.) 

A protocol is warranted for the inspection because Volvo

needs to dismantle parts of the vehicle. Volvo’s protocol is

satisfactory except that the court also requires Volvo to

indemnify plaintiff for any injury or damage caused by Volvo’s

operation and inspection of the vehicle and Volvo shall pay all

costs associated therewith, and plaintiff may have a passive

observer present if the person is a certified Volvo mechanic.

So ordered.

Dated: January 11, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01379-MCE -EFB Document 53 Filed 01/12/06 Page 3 of 3