Higginson

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Ryan Higginson sued defendant and respondent Kia Motors America, Inc. (Kia), alleging that Kia’s conduct in connection with defects in the engine of his 2013 Kia Soul violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.; the Song-Beverly Act) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.; CLRA), and constituted fraud. Because Higginson failed to attach to his initial complaint a venue affidavit required by the CLRA, the trial court dismissed that cause of action without leave to amend, despite the fact Higginson filed a venue affidavit before filing an amended complaint. During discovery, Higginson requested that Kia produce documents regarding (among other things) internal investigations and communications with government agencies regarding alleged engine defects. When Kia responded with boilerplate objections, Higginson obtained a court order directing Kia to respond without objections to a narrowed, court-approved definition of “engine defects.” Kia served verified supplemental responses attesting that responsive documents “never existed.” The Kia employee who verified the discovery responses…