Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01058/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01058-0/pdf.json

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

27

28

-1- 11cv1058-MMA (BLM) 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENE EDWARDS, on behalf of herself and

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11CV1058 - MMA (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

[ECF No. 39]

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [ECF No. 39, “Pl.’s Mot.”],

Defendant’s Opposition to the motion [ECF No. 46, “Def’s Opp.”], Plaintiff’s Reply [ECF No.

49, “Pl.’s Reply”], and Defendant’s Sur-Reply [ECF No. 54, “Def’s Sur-Reply”]. For the

reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, who is suing under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair

Competition Law, filed a complaint in this matter which was removed to this Court on May

13, 2011. ECF No. 1-2 (“Compl.”). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that her vehicle, a

2006 Ford Freestyle, “repeatedly surged forward and stalled while her foot was on the brake

and she was bringing the vehicle to a stop.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff further alleges that this type

of problem with the Freestyle was widespread and the result of a safety defect in 2005-2007

Ford Freestyles and was known by Defendant but not disclosed to its customers. Id.

According to Plaintiff, the surging and stalling problems in the Ford Freestyle are the result

of a defective Electronic Throttle Control (“ETC”). Id. at 9. The ETC consists of an

Case 3:11-cv-01058-MMA-BLM Document 55 Filed 02/17/12 Page 1 of 7
 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

-2- 11cv1058-MMA (BLM) 

electronic throttle body (“ETB”), powertrain control module, gas pedal assembly, sensors,

and associated wiring. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was aware of the defective ETC

system as early as April 2005 and that Defendant continued to sell the vehicles without

informing customers of the defect and related safety risks. Id. 

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery, authorizing

parties to obtain discovery regarding "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

party’s claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, "[f]or good cause, the court may

order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action." Id.

Relevant information for discovery purposes includes any information "reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," and need not be admissible at trial to be

discoverable. Id. There is no requirement that the information sought directly relate to a

particular issue in the case. Rather, relevance encompasses any matter that "bears on" or

could reasonably lead to matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be presented

in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). District courts

have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan,

296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly, district courts have broad discretion to limit

discovery where the discovery sought is "unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be

obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less

expensive." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Limits should be imposed where the burden or

expense outweighs the likely benefits. Id.

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule 26(b).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). "For each item or category, the response must either state that

inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the

request, including the reasons." Id. at 34(b)(2)(B). The responding party is responsible for

all items in "the responding party’s possession, custody, or control." Id. at 34(a)(1). Actual

possession, custody or control is not required. Rather, "[a] party may be ordered to

produce a document in the possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right

Case 3:11-cv-01058-MMA-BLM Document 55 Filed 02/17/12 Page 2 of 7
 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 Plaintiff originally sought all such documents that refer to the transmission or Electronic Throttle

Control but during the meet and confer process, Plaintiff limited the request to documents referencing the

Electronic Throttle Control. Pl.'s Mot. at 3, n.1.

-3- 11cv1058-MMA (BLM) 

to obtain the document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the document.

Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 619 (N.D.Cal. 1995).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, "a party may move for an order

compelling disclosure or discovery." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The party seeking to compel

discovery has the burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevance requirement

of Rule 26. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 610. Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has the

burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of "clarifying,

explaining, and supporting its objections." DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458

(C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975)).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to produce “each 8D, G8D, 14D, 6-Panel, or other

reporting method, including drafts and unfinished or informal versions, that refers to the . . .

Electronic Throttle Control in Class Vehicles.”1 Pl.’s Mot. at 3 & ECF No. 39-2, Exh. A at 7,

Plaintiff’s Second Set of RFPs. According to Plaintiff, the 8D, 14D and 6-Panel documents

are “reporting methods” (also referred to as summaries or standardized reports) used by

Defendant to gather information when vehicle-related problems arise. Pl.’s Mot. at 2.

Plaintiff argues that the documents she seeks are relevant because they will provide

information that will aid in determining if a defective ETC system caused the large number

of surging and stalling incidents that have occurred, and when Defendant first learned about

the defect. Pl.’s Reply at 4. Plaintiff further argues that Defendant’s statements that it has

“produced all summaries related to the Electronic Throttle Control to the extent they also

pertain to unstable idle speed control” does not satisfy Plaintiff’s request because it

improperly limits the scope of the produced reports to those involving “unstable idle speed

control” when the alleged surging and stalling may involve other issues or be described in

other ways. Finally, Plaintiff contends that Defendant should not be excused from producing

Case 3:11-cv-01058-MMA-BLM Document 55 Filed 02/17/12 Page 3 of 7
 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

-4- 11cv1058-MMA (BLM) 

the requested discovery because the request is too burdensome because Defendant has

failed to provide enough information to properly assess the burden. Id. at 8. Plaintiff asks

that the Court overrule Defendant’s objections and require Defendant to search for and

produce all requested documents within thirty days. Id. at 11.

Defendant responds that Plaintiff’s request is not relevant because “the discovery

Plaintiff seeks simply does not relate to the claims she is asserting.” Def’s Opp. at 2. In

support, Defendant argues that it has produced all of the reporting methods relating to the

subject matter of the complaint and that refer to the ETC system. Id. at 8. Therefore,

anything else that Plaintiff is seeking is an attempt to gain summaries of other issues that

may have nothing to do with surging. Id. Defendant notes that it has consistently used the

term “unstable idle speed” to describe the issue that is the subject of the litigation. Def’s

Sur-Reply at 2. Defendant further states that “Plaintiff has made no attempt to show that

her request is related in any way to the ‘surging’ issue alleged” in the complaint. Def’s Opp.

at 9. Defendant also contends that Plaintiff’s request is unduly burdensome. Id. 

Defendant requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion and award Defendant its expenses

in opposing the motion. Id. at 11.

A. Relevance

Contrary to Defendant’s claim, Plaintiff’s request seeks information directly related

to the subject matter of the litigation and Plaintiff has satisfied her burden of establishing

that her request meets the relevance requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Plaintiff requests

all “8D, G8D, 14D, and 6-Panel, or other reporting methods, including drafts and unfinished

or informal versions, that refers to the . . . Electronic Throttle Control in Class Vehicles.”

ECF No. 39-2, Exh. A at 7, Plaintiff’s Second Set of RFPs. Because Plaintiff alleges that her

2006 Ford Freestyle experienced surging and stalling that was corrected by replacing her

ETB, which is part of the ETC, and because the class of plaintiffs in the case is defined as

“All persons in California who own or leased a 2005-2007 Ford Freestyle, and all persons in

California who previously owned or lease a 2005-2007 Ford Freestyle and paid for repairs

to the vehicle’s Electronic Throttle Control,” the requested documents are relevant to

Case 3:11-cv-01058-MMA-BLM Document 55 Filed 02/17/12 Page 4 of 7
 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

-5- 11cv1058-MMA (BLM) 

Plaintiff’s allegations. Compl. at 5 & 9-10. 

B. Burden

The discovery that Plaintiff seeks is relevant and is not “unreasonably cumulative or

duplicative” and cannot “be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less

burdensome, or less expensive." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Thus, the burden is on

Defendant to demonstrate that the discovery should be prohibited. Pham v. Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 5508832, *3 (D.Nev. Nov. 09, 2011) (citing Residential Constructors,

LLC v. Ace Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3149362, *9 (D.Nev. Nov. 1, 2006)). In order

to satisfy this burden, Defendant “must provide sufficient detail regarding the time, money

and procedures required to produce the requested documents.” Id. The fact that

production of documents will be time consuming and expensive is not ordinarily a sufficient

reason to refuse to produce material if the requested material is relevant and necessary to

the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. (citing In re Toys “R” Us–Delaware, Inc. Litigation,

2010 WL 4942645, *6 (C.D.Cal. July 29, 2010)). 

Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden. Initially, Defendant acknowledges that its

primary objection to Plaintiff’s request is relevance, not burden. Def’s Opp. at 2. However,

in arguing that the requested production would be unduly burdensome, Defendant states

that the requested documents are stored electronically and that “there is no electronic

search mechanism that will allow Ford to locate all summaries that refer to a particular

component in a particular vehicle program” making Plaintiff’s broad request unmanageable.

Def’s Opp. at 10. Defendant claims that even if it limited the search to information

maintained by the department responsible for the ETB, it would require Defendant to:

(a) review the quality history for the ETB maintained by the ETB Technical

Specialist; (b) determine whether additional information may be held by other

current and former ETB team members; (c) identify documents and topics

reasonably likely to refer to the ETB installed on Freestyle vehicles; and (d)

conduct a search of Defendant’s 8D and Six-Sigma databases and review

those search results to confirm whether the documents or topics refer, in any

way, to the ETB installed on the 2005-2007 Freestyle vehicles for any

documents identified in subpart (c).

ECF No. 46-2 at 4, Exh. Hall Decl. at 3. Defendant estimates that such a search would take

Case 3:11-cv-01058-MMA-BLM Document 55 Filed 02/17/12 Page 5 of 7
 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

-6- 11cv1058-MMA (BLM) 

“approximately 95-100 hours utilizing the time of 2 department supervisors, 1 technical

specialist, 4 additional department team members and 3 employees that previously worked

in the ETB department.” Id. at 4. Defendant notes that this effort is limited to the ETB and

does “not include information maintained by the departments responsible for other

components, systems, software programs and calibration strategies that comprise the ETC

system.” Id.

Defendant’s argument fails to establish an undue burden for several reasons. First,

the fact that “there is no electronic search mechanism that will allow Ford to locate all

summaries that refer to a particular component in a particular vehicle program” is

insufficient to demonstrate an undue burden. Defendant cannot escape its obligation to

provide relevant documents because it has chosen to store those documents in a way that

makes it difficult for Defendant to search for them. See Pham, 2011 WL 5508832 at *3

(stating that “the fact that a responding party maintains records in different locations,

utilizes a filing system that does not directly correspond to the subjects set forth in Plaintiffs'

interrogatory, or that responsive documents might be voluminous does not suffice to sustain

a claim of undue burden”) (quoting Thomas v. Cate, 715 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1033–34 (E.D.Cal.

2010)).

Second, Defendant’s estimations are based on a wider scope of documents than what

Plaintiff is seeking and what this Court is ordering it to produce. The description of the work

that Defendants would have to perform to satisfy Plaintiff’s request is based on capturing

all documents that refer to the ETB. ECF No. 46-2 at 4, Exh. Hall Decl. at 3. Plaintiff,

however, is not seeking all documents that refer to the ETB. Pl.’s Reply at 10. Instead,

Plaintiff only seeks to obtain Ford’s standardized reports (such as the 8D, G8D, 14D, or 6-

Panels) that refer to the ETC or its components. Id. at 9. Given this distinction, Defendant’s

burden is less than what it has estimated for the Court. 

Finally, while Defendant provides some conclusory statements to justify its burden

argument, Defendant fails to provide sufficient details to allow the Court to evaluate that

argument. For example, Defendant does not provide an estimate of the number of

Case 3:11-cv-01058-MMA-BLM Document 55 Filed 02/17/12 Page 6 of 7
 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

-7- 11cv1058-MMA (BLM) 

standardized reports that refer to the ETC for the Class Vehicles or whether any of the

responsive reports are not maintained in a computer database. Def’s Opp. & Def’s SurReply. Similarly, Defendant fails to adequately explain how or why it would take 95-100

hours and 10 people to search for the requested reports and how much of that time and

what number of employees are required to perform the necessary computer searches. ECF

No. 46-2 at 4, Exh. Hall Decl. at 3. Additionally, Defendant mentions that its 8D and SixSigma documents are contained in a searchable database, but fails to state if the 14Ds and

other reports are also stored electronically in a searchable database or in some other

location. Id. Defendant goes on to explain that the search capabilities of its electronic

databases and systems is limited, but fails to provide any detail on those limitations or to

explain what searches could be performed. Since the Court has no information about the

extent of documents that are responsive to Plaintiff’s request or how those documents are

organized and stored, it is impossible for the Court to evaluate Defendant’s estimates with

regard to the number of hours and employees needed to respond to Plaintiff’s request.

Thus, Defendant has not satisfied its burden of proving that a response would be unduly

burdensome.

CONCLUSION

The Court finds that the information sought in Plaintiff's Request for Production No.

5 is relevant and calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED and Defendant is ordered to produce all 8D, G8D, 14D, and

6-Panel, or other standardized reports (“reporting methods”), including drafts and unfinished

or informal versions, that reference the Electronic Throttle Control in Class Vehicles.

Defendant is ordered to produced all responsive documents by March 9, 2012. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 17, 2012

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01058-MMA-BLM Document 55 Filed 02/17/12 Page 7 of 7