Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV00450, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV00450    Hearing Date: October 19, 2023    Dept: F51

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Motion filed: 7/14/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Rocio Trujillo and Elvira Rodriguez Montoya (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One, Nos. 1–3, 7–9, 12, 18, 20, 24, 26, 32, 37, 40, 43, 46, 50, 52, 58, 63, 66, 69, 70, 73, 81, 88, 93, 95, 96, 105, 113–119, and 123 within 10 calendar days.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Defendant to provide further code-compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ first set of RFPs, Request Nos. 1–3, 7–9, 12, 18, 20, 24, 26, 32, 37, 40, 43, 46, 50, 52, 58, 63, 66, 69, 70, 73, 81, 88, 93, 95, 96, 105, 113–119, and 123 within 30 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant and/or its counsel in the amount of $750.00.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs bring this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code § 1790 et seq.) for a vehicle they purchased on or around 12/20/17, which was manufactured and distributed by Defendant. (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 10.) Plaintiffs allege that “defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period, including but not limited to, transmission defects; engine defects; a/c defects; electrical defects,” yet Defendant “has failed to either promptly replace the Subject Vehicle or to promptly make restitution in accordance with the Song-Beverly Act.” (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 15.)

On 2/17/23, Plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(d); (2) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(b); (3) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(a)(3); (4) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and (5) Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. On 3/20/23, Defendant filed its answer.

On 4/4/23, Plaintiffs served their Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendant. (Decl. of Nino Sanaia ¶ 24.) On 5/4/23, Defendant served its responses thereto. (Id. at ¶ 27.) On 6/13/23, the parties filed a stipulated protective order regarding documents designated as “Confidential.”

On 7/14/23, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel further responses to their RFPs, Set One. On 10/6/23, Defendant filed its opposition to the instant motion. On 10/10/23, Plaintiffs filed their reply.

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard 

California law requires a responding party to respond to each request for production of documents with either a statement of compliance, a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply, or an objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).) 

If the response includes an objection to the demand in part, it must also include a statement of compliance or noncompliance as set forth above. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (a).) Additionally, the response must (1) identify the particular document that falls within the category of the request to which the objection is being made, and (2) expressly set forth the extent of, and specific ground for, the objection. (Id. at subd. (b).) A propounding party may move for an order compelling further response to a discovery request if it decides that “an objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (a).) 

Here, Plaintiffs seek to compel additional responses to their first set of RFPs, specifically to request Nos. 1–3, 7–9, 12, 18, 20, 24, 26, 32, 37, 40, 43, 46, 50, 52, 58, 63, 66, 69, 70, 73, 81, 88, 93, 95, 96, 105, 113–119, and 123, which are broadly divisible into the following categories: (A) “Documents concerning the Subject Vehicle;” (B) “Documents concerning GM’s Internal Knowledge and Investigation regarding the Transmission Defects and Engine Defects in 2017 GMC Yukon Vehicles, including internal investigations, emails, and other ESI;” (C) “Documents concerning Summaries, Memoranda, Power Points, regarding the Transmission Defects and Engine Defects in 2017 GMC Yukon Vehicles;” (D) “Documents concerning Song Beverly Act and Buyback Policies and Procedures;” and (E) “Documents concerning Communication with Governmental Agencies and Suppliers regarding the Transmission Defects and Engine Defects in 2017 GMC Yukon Vehicles.” (Pls.’ Mot. 3:14–4:4.) Plaintiffs argue that the motion is warranted because Defendant unjustifiably refused to respond to the requests in full and made meritless, boilerplate objections thereto.

Meet and Confer 

A motion to compel further discovery responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration stating, “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); 2016.040.) 

Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that beginning on 5/22/23, she began meeting and conferring with Defendant’s counsel regarding raising the issues in the instant motion. (Sanaia Decl. ¶ 33.) The parties further discussed these issues on 5/30/23, 6/2/23. 7/12/23 but were unable to come to an informal resolution. (Id. at ¶¶ 35–37.) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that counsel has satisfied the preliminary meet and confer requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (b)(2). 

Defendant’s Objections

Here, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s objections to their first set of RFPs are without merit. (Pls.’ Mot. 10:6–8; Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (a).) Defendant objected to a majority of these requests with objections on the following bases: (1) the terms contained therein are vague and ambiguous; (2) they are overbroad and seek irrelevant documents; (3) they are unduly burdensome; (3) they seek confidential, proprietary and trade secret information; and (4) they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. (Ex. 9 to Sanaia Decl.)

a.                   Scope/Relevance 

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s objections to the subject RFPs on the basis that they seek irrelevant matter are meritless because “the requested documents are relevant to the issues related to GM’s good faith compliance with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, including the breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, as well as Plaintiffs’ negligent repair claim.” (Pls.’ Mot. 13:6–8.) Discovery is relevant if it is admissible as evidence, or “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) “Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.” (Ibid.) 

Here, Plaintiffs argues that “the Requests seek documents relating to GM’s internal investigation and analysis of the Transmission and Engine Defects plaguing the Subject Vehicle, establishing that GM previously knew of such Defects but nevertheless refused to repurchase the Subject Vehicle.” (Pls.’ Mot. 14:20–22.)

Defendant argues in opposition that “these requests are ridiculously overbroad as drafted, seeking all manner of documents, without any limitation in scope, duration, or consideration of relevancy.” (Def.’s Opp. 7:9–10.) “This breach of warranty case is about Plaintiffs’ Yukon and repairs to that Yukon under warranty. GM has already produced all of the documents relevant to Plaintiffs’ breach of warranty claims. GM maintains its objections that documents about other vehicles, complaints from or by other consumers, or the design of specific component systems or parts are not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim that GM failed to repair their Yukon within a reasonable number of attempts.” (Id. at 5:15–19 [emphasis in original].)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have provided sufficient cause for production of the subject documents. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) To obtain civil penalties under the Song-Beverly Act, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s failure to comply was willful, which may be based on the defendant’s knowledge of a certain defect. (Civ. Code § 1794, subd. (c).) Information regarding vehicles other than Plaintiffs’ is relevant to the subject matter of this action as it could assist Plaintiffs in proving Defendant’s willful violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Documents responsive to these requests may reasonably lead to the discovery of information as to the nature and duration of the defects, Defendant’s knowledge of the defects, and Defendant’s inability to repair the defects. While the cases relied on by Plaintiffs (i.e., Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967) may not involve the exact circumstance before this Court, they are sufficient to show that the requested information could itself be admissible or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant’s relevance objections to Plaintiff’s Request Nos. 1–3, 7–9, 12, 18, 20, 24, 26, 32, 37, 40, 43, 46, 50, 52, 58, 63, 66, 69, 70, 73, 81, 88, 93, 95, 96, 105, 113–119, and 123 are without merit.

b.                  Undue Burden

Plaintiffs further argue that Defendant’s objections to their first set of RFPs on the basis that they are unduly burdensome and oppressive are meritless absent any additional showing of any such undue burden or oppression. (Pl.’s Mot. 10:23.) The party objecting to a discovery request on this basis bears the burden of supplying evidence of “the quantum of work required.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.)

“If a party objects to the discovery of electronically stored information on the grounds that it is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense and that the responding party will not search the source in the absence of an agreement with the demanding party or court order, the responding party shall identify in its response the types or categories of sources of electronically stored information that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. By objecting and identifying information of a type or category of source or sources that are not reasonably accessible, the responding party preserves any objections it may have relating to that electronically stored information.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (d) [emphasis added].)

In opposition, Defendant observes that Plaintiffs have propounded 368 total discovery requests, and Defendant has already produced various requested documents in response to Plaintiffs’ first set of RFPs. (Def.’s Opp. 1:4–2:10.) However, the Court notes that Defendant has not supplied evidence to show the “quantum of work required” to respond in full to Plaintiffs’ first set of RFPs as requested in the instant motion, nor has Defendant stated the categories of sources of ESI that are not reasonably accessible. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant’s objections to the requests to the extent that they are unduly burdensome or oppressive are without adequate support and agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendant has waived any objections it may assert relating to ESI.

c.                   Trade Secrets 

Defendant further objected to the subject RFPs on the basis that each request “seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM’s internal policies and procedures.” (Ex. 9 to Sanaia Decl.) Evidence Code section 1060 provides that the owner of a trade secret has a privilege to refuse to disclose the secret and to prevent others from disclosing it, unless allowing the privilege will conceal fraud or result in injustice. A party that is claiming the trade secret privilege has the burden of proving the party's entitlement to that privilege. (Amgen Inc. v California Correctional Health Care Servs. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 716, 733.)

“‘Trade secret’ means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” (Civ. Code § 3426.1, subd. (d).)

Here, Defendant argues that “the documents Plaintiffs seek may relate to and contain confidential communications between GM employees and GM’s suppliers and/or sub-suppliers concerning technical, mechanical, and commercial issues and analyses.” (Def.’s Opp. 10:1–3.) “Because the wholesale disclosure of GM’s internal, confidential materials would cause GM competitive harm, GM should not be compelled to produce any additional documents without Plaintiff having satisfied the heightened burden to show why Plaintiff needs the documents in this breach of warranty case, which Plaintiff has not done.” (Id. at 10:20–23.)

In support of its argument, Defendant offers the sworn declaration of Huizhen Lu, a Senior Manager/Technical Consultant of Engineering Analysis employed with Defendant, attesting that the documents sought may include, “design specifications, evaluations, and performance analysis relative to specifications, material selection, cost, and quality. Such information is not generally available to the public. GM LLC derives value from this information’s confidentiality and would be harmed by the loss of confidentiality. Consequently, GM LLC makes considerable effort to keep this information confidential.” (Ex. A to Decl. of Arash Yaranghchian, ¶ 11.)

The Court notes that the parties have stipulated to a protective order, filed with the Court on 6/13/23, and therefore any claimed private, trade secret or confidential proprietary information may be adequately protected by the terms of that protective order. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant has not adequately shown that the specific documents requested by Plaintiffs are trade secrets protected from discovery, particularly where the parties appear amenable to a protective order.

As set forth above, Defendant’s objections to the subject requests are overruled. The Court orders Defendant to provide further code-compliant responses to these requests and produce further documents accordingly within 30 days. Production of any documents Defendant contends contain trade secret or confidential proprietary information shall be so designated and will be subject to the stipulated protective order.

Sanctions 

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (h).) 

Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,000.00 to be imposed against Defendant and/or its counsel, which accounts for eight hours of counsel’s time spent preparing the instant motion, at her hourly rate of $375.00 per hour. (Sanaia Decl. ¶ 49.) In granting the instant motion, the Court finds it reasonable to award Plaintiffs sanctions against Defendant and/or its counsel in the amount of $750.00.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted. Defendant to provide further code-compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ first set of RFPs, Request Nos. 1–3, 7–9, 12, 18, 20, 24, 26, 32, 37, 40, 43, 46, 50, 52, 58, 63, 66, 69, 70, 73, 81, 88, 93, 95, 96, 105, 113–119, and 123 within 30 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant and/or its counsel in the amount of $750.00.