Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV40911, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV40911    Hearing Date: December 4, 2023    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:  Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One and for Monetary Sanctions Pursuant To C.C.P. Section 2031.320(b) Against General Motors LLC and Erskine Law Group, PC. in the Amount of $2,004.15.

The motion to compel further responses and for sanctions is denied.

On 12/29/22, LAURO MARCIAL (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against GENERAL MOTORS LLC (“Defendant”), alleging that Plaintiff purchased a new 2018 Chevrolet Silverado, having and developing serious defects and nonconformities to warranty, which Defendant was unable to conform after a reasonable number of attempts.  The causes of action are:  1. Violation of Song-Beverly Act- Breach Of Express Warranty; 2. Violation of Song-Beverly Act - Breach of Implied Warranty;   3. Violation of The Song- Beverly Act Section 1793.2;  4. Violation of The Song- Beverly Act Section 1793.22- Tanner Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant to serve further responses as to document requests numbers 13 through 16 and 34 through 35, on grounds specified in the separate statement, including that Plaintiff is entitled to discovery that is probative of Defendant's knowledge of defects and malfunctions with the vehicle’s transmission and electrical issues in the 2018 Chevrolet Silverado, and defendant's handling of other complaints and repurchases, potentially relevant to showing Defendant’s willfulness as a basis for penalties under the Song-Beverly Act (Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143-44; Doppes v. Bentley Motors. Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th967.973-74,994.).  Also, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions. 

Defendant opposes the motion for reasons specified in the opposing separate statement, including based upon various objections including:  1) Complaints by other vehicle owners are not relevant to Plaintiff’s claim that GM failed to repair the Silverado within a reasonable number of attempts;  2)  Request for Production Nos. 34-35 are overly broadly in seeking all Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs) and recalls relating to the Subject Vehicle;  3)  The requests demand production of confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive information that may contain trade secrets;  4) sanctions should be denied where Plaintiff served facially overbroad requests that exceed the scope of the parties’ claims and defenses, for the purpose of manufacturing a discovery dispute, without meeting and conferring in good faith.

As to request numbers 13 through 16, the Court sustains the response objections, “overbroad, vague and ambiguous.”  The discovery requests seek documents identifying any documents “allegedly containing any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU for repair,” as to Plaintiff’s Complaint that alleges no type of defect, such that the requests are unusually vague and overbroad. Although the reply, at page 2, lines 25 through 26, mentions transmission and electrical defects, the discovery requests are not narrowed to those.  Other Lemon Law complaints and discovery requests seen in this Court have stated types of defects, such as slow acceleration, electrical malfunctions, or inoperative transmissions. 

Request 34 for, “All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to technical service bulletins which have been issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and model…,” is overly broadly because it included a vague array of documents beyond the technical service bulletins and do not narrow the bulletins to those addressing transmission and electrical defects. 

Additionally, request 35 requesting, “All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to recalls which have been issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and model…,” is overly broadly because it calls for recalls unrelated to defects that the unspecific Complaint is based upon, and not narrowed to transmission and electrical defects mentioned in the reply.  It is an unusually broad “fishing expedition.”

Because the above rulings on discovery objections are dispositive, the Court need not reach the other objections raised by Defendant. Defendant acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion and so the court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

The parties should schedule an Informal Discovery Conference with the court for any future discovery disputes, before filing a motion to compel further responses. Department 55’s Courtroom Information sheet found on the LASC website contains information about the court’s IDC process.