Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV09201, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09201    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Pleadings

Plaintiff Asaf Raz sues Defendants General Motors, LLC (GM) and Does 1 through 20 pursuant to an April 25, 2023 Complaint alleging claims of (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability under The Song-Beverly Act and (2) Breach of Express Warranty under The Song-Beverly Act.

The claims arise from allegations that on December 7, 2022, Plaintiff Asaf Raz purchased a 2023 Cadillac Escalade (Vehicle), pursuant to which Plaintiff received written warranties and other express and implied warranties from GM, which GM breached after it or its repair facilities failed to bring certain defects in the Vehicle up to warranty within a reasonable number of attempts. The Complaint does not appear to list out the defects that were not conformed to warranty, but does mention a repair visit for “a burning odor, the illumination of the ‘Check Engine’ warning light, the engine violently shaking[,] and recall #N222384930 to address the ‘Trailer Brake Control Switch.’”

Motion Before the Court

On July 7, 2023, Plaintiff Raz served Defendant GM with a set of Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (1) (RPDs, Set One).

On August 7, 2023, GM served unverified discovery responses to RPDs, Set One.

On August 17, 2023, Plaintiff Raz’s counsel sent GM’s counsel a meet and confer letter highlighting what Plaintiff’s counsel perceived as deficiencies with each discovery item at issue.

On August 24, 2023, GM’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel indicating that GM stood by its objections and responses. The letter proposes that the parties enter into a proposed stipulated protective order and privilege log agreement regarding production of information subject to privileges.

On August 29, 2023, GM verified its discovery responses to RPDs, Set One.

That same day, Plaintiff’s counsel called GM’s counsel to further meet and confer, but the call was not answered nor was the voicemail Plaintiff’s counsel left responded to by GM’s counsel.

On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel again left a voicemail for GM’s counsel with no response from GM’s counsel.

On October 17, 2023, Plaintiff Raz filed a motion to compel Defendant GM to provide further responses to RPDs, Set One, Nos. 1, 3, 9, 17, 31, 37-54, and 62. The motion does not seek monetary sanctions.

On December 19, 2023, GM opposed Plaintiff’s motion.

On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff replied to GM’s opposition.

Plaintiff’s motion is now before the Court.

Evidentiary Objections

Reply Objection to Opposition’s Lu Decl.: SUSTAINED. (See Reply, pp. 7-8.)

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production Request

Legal Standard

A motion to compel a further response is used when a party gives unsatisfactory answers or makes untenable objections to interrogatories, demands to produce, or requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)

To request further production, a movant must establish: (1) good cause for the production (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Sinaiko, supra, at p. 403); and (2) that a further response is needed because (a) the responding party’s statement of compliance with the demand to produce is incomplete Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1)), (b) the responding party’s representation that it is unable to comply is inadequate, complete, or evasive (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(2)), (c) the responding party’s objection in the response is without merit or is too general (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3); Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1127), or (d) if the responding party objected to the production of ESI on the ground that it is not reasonably accessible the movant can show that the (i) ESI is reasonably accessible or (ii) there is good cause for production of the ESI regardless of its accessibility (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (e)).

Order Compelling Further Production: GRANTED.

In his motion, Plaintiff Raz argues that “[a]s shown in [his] … Separate Statement, [GM]’s response to Request Nos. 1, 3, 9, 17, 31, 37-54, and 62 are incomplete and/or the corresponding production is deficient. (Mot., pp. 5-6.)

GM’s separate statement summarizes each production request at issue, the objections and/or responses thereto, and the reasons why a further response is merited. (Mot., Separate Statement, pp. 2-32.)

In opposition, GM argues that this motion should be denied because Plaintiff’s counsel did not meet and confer in good faith insofar as Plaintiff’s counsel never made an attempt to substantively address GM’s concerns as to the production at issue. GM also argues in favor of its objections and responses but notes that GM has offered to produce responsive documents to all the production requests at issue, insofar as they concern Plaintiff’s Escalade, and subject to the entry of a stipulated LASC Model Protective Order. GM otherwise argues that production related to Request No. 9 is not entirely necessary and is unnecessary as to Request Nos. 37-54 and 62. GM last argues that the production requests seek trade secrets belonging to GM. GM closes by asking that, if any portion of this motion is granted, it should be contingent on the execution of a protective order. (Opp’n, pp. 3-9.)

GM’s separate statement summarizes each production request at issue, the objections and/or responses thereto, and the reasons why a further response is not merited. (Opp’n, Separate Statement, pp. 1-31.)

In reply, Plaintiff Raz argues that the meet and confer efforts as to this motion were sufficient. Plaintiff also argues that the documents sought in the requests at issue are relevant and discoverable and good cause exists for their production. Last, Plaintiff argues that GM failed to timely assert and substantiate its confidentiality and trade secret claims when it opposed Plaintiff’s discovery motion. (Reply, pp. 2-7.)

The Court finds in favor of Plaintiff.

The propounded discovery here is relevant and not vague, ambiguous, or, in light of the subject matter at hand, oppressive. “‘If the buyer establishes that [a] failure to comply [with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (SBA)] was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages.’ (§ 1794, subd. (c).)” (Santana v. FCA U.S. LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 346.) “In regard to the willful requirement of Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (c), a civil penalty may be awarded if the jury determines that the manufacturer ‘knew of its obligations but intentionally declined to fulfill them. ….’” (Schreidel v. American Honda Motor Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249-1250, citations omitted; see also Bishop v. Hyundai Motor Am. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 750, 759 [Defendant agreed that jury was properly instructed that it “‘acted ‘willfully’ if [the jury] determine[d] that [defendant] knew of its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act but intentionally declined to fulfill them”].)

The document requests here could influence a determination on whether GM was aware of a defect in the Vehicle that should have compelled GM to replace or repurchase the Vehicle. Even the requests related to other vehicles are discoverable because if those documents show that a component of the Vehicle was defective, as gleaned from reports from other vehicles, and GM was aware of that defect but failed to repurchase or replace the Vehicle, then civil penalties may be in order. (See Mot., Separate Statement, RPD Nos. 37-54.)

The Court notes that the parties are engaged, to whatever degree, in discussions to sign a protective order, with GM advancing the proposed order as a condition of production of documents otherwise subject to privileges or other protections (trade secrets). Plaintiff contends in its Reply brief that such protective order has been signed, and the Court is prepared to sign it upon submission to the Court.

If GM can only provide a limited response or limited production, it behooves GM to more clearly make that representation in any supplemental response to this discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, et seq.)

Plaintiff’s motion is therefore GRANTED.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Asaf Raz’s Motion to Compel Defendant General Motors LLC, Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Nos. 1, 3, 9, 17, 31, 37-54, and 62 is GRANTED.

Defendant General Motors LLC is ORDERED to produce supplemental responses and production to Request for Production of Documents, Nos. 1, 3, 9, 17, 31, 37-54, and 62 within 20 calendar days of this order.