Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV16738, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV16738 Hearing Date: September 12, 2023 Dept: 52
Plaintiff Jose de Jesus Delgado’s Motion
to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production
Plaintiff
Jose de Jesus Delgado moves to compel further responses to requests for
production, set two, Nos. 1-50. A
requesting party may move to compel further responses if “[a] statement of
compliance with the demand is incomplete,” “[a] representation of inability to
comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,” or “[a]n objection in the
response is without merit or too general.”
(CCP § 2031.310(a).)
Meet and Confer
Defendant
General Motors, LLC argues plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith
before filing this motion. Plaintiff
sent a detailed meet and confer letter on July 20, 2023 (Treybig Decl., ¶¶
23-24, Ex. 5), over three weeks before filing this motion. The record includes no evidence that
defendant responded to the letter.
Defendant asserts the letter has no “substantive reasoning or
analysis.” (Opp., p. 3.) The letter has detailed discussions of the
scope of discovery in this action (pp. 2-5), defendant’s objections (pp. 6-8),
and the specific requests grouped in several categories (pp. 9-14). Plaintiff met and conferred in good faith as
required.
Trade Secrets
1. Existence of Privilege
Defendant objected to all demands based
on the trade secret privilege. “In resolving a claim of trade secret privilege, the
party claiming the privilege has the initial burden of proving its existence.” (Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Costco
Wholesale Corp. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1, 13, disapproved on other grounds
by Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 335.) A trade secret is information “ ‘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.’ ” (Ibid.)
Defendant does not meet its initial
burden as to requests for production Nos. 1 and 3-6. These requests concern defendant’s policies
or procedures in evaluating whether to repurchase a vehicle and recalls (Nos.
1, 5, 6) and documents regarding GM’s call center or customer relations
involving the subject vehicle (Nos. 3-4).
Defendant relies on the declaration of Huizhen Lu, an employee in GM’s engineering department. (Valencia Decl., Ex. C.) He testifies about the value of confidential
information about GM’s vehicles, their components, how GM evaluates its
products, how GM investigates problems in its products, and meeting minutes
about the design, manufacture, and performance of GM vehicles. (Id., ¶¶ 12-38.) Lu is an engineer. He does not work in customer relations or in
legal compliance. He does not provide
sufficient evidence that GM’s policies on evaluating repurchase requests or
customer relations are trade secrets.
Defendant meets its initial burden
as to requests for production Nos. 2 and 7-50.
These requests ask for various categories of documents about vehicle service
or warranty “issued to any dealer, regional or zone offices, fleet purchasers,
or other entities” (No. 2) and alleged defects in 2019 Chevrolet Silverado
vehicles: “brake defects” (Nos. 7-17), “structural defects” (Nos. 18-28), “transmission
defects” (Nos. 29-39), and “engine defects” (Nos. 40-50). Manufacturers may possess trade secrets about
their products. “[A] manufacturer … has
a legitimate interest in protecting its trade secrets and other confidential
proprietary information.” (Westinghouse
Electric Corp. v. Newman & Holtzinger (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1209
[documents reflecting engineers’ analysis of products]; accord Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1388
[“manufacturing specifications for” tires in case alleging design defect].)
The declaration
of Huizhen Lu establishes both elements of the trade secret privilege for
request Nos. 2 and 7-50. Lu states, “GM
LLC derives value” from the confidentiality of its engineering
information. (Lu Decl., ¶ 11.) “Knowing GM LLC’s confidential engineering and
business information would give a competitor the ability to readily compare its
processes and designs with those of GM LLC.”
(Id., ¶ 12.) “[A]
competitor could save substantial developmental costs associated with
evaluation and development without compensating GM LLC for the expenses
incurred through years in studying, processing, testing, designing, and
otherwise developing the components in GM LLC vehicles.” (Ibid.) Lu further states, “GM LLC’s engineering and
business information can be used by others to quickly create and sell
counterfeit automotive components or to create competing vehicle lines.” (Ibid.) For the second element, Lu explains details
of GM’s security protocols in protecting its “confidential engineering and
business information,” including by limiting its own employees’ access to the
information. (Id., ¶ 10.)
2. Discovery of Trade
Secrets
Once the party claiming the
privilege shows it applies, the “party
seeking discovery of trade secret information, ‘must make a prima facie,
particularized showing that the information sought is relevant and necessary
... and that it is reasonable to conclude that the information sought is
essential to a fair resolution of the lawsuit. It is then up to the holder of the privilege
to demonstrate any claimed disadvantages of a protective order.” (Multiversal Enterprises-Mammoth
Properties, LLC v. Yelp Inc. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 890, 900.)
Plaintiff does not meet this
burden. Plaintiff’s papers do not
address defendant’s trade secret objections.
The documents plaintiff requests are not relevant and necessary such
that they are essential to a fair resolution of the lawsuit. The proper focus of this action is whether
plaintiff’s 2019 Chevrolet Silverado conforms to its warranty. Request Nos. 2 and 7-50 seek a myriad of
documents about the entire line of vehicles.
At most, these documents could show defendant’s knowledge of defects to
support plaintiff’s claim that defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly
Act. But that analysis turns primarily
on defendant’s process in attempting to repair the subject vehicle and in deciding
not to repurchase it. “A decision made
without the use of reasonably available information germane to that decision is
not a reasonable, good faith decision.”
(Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23
Cal.App.4th 174, 186; accord Lukather v. General Motors, LLC (2010) 181
Cal.App.4th 1041, 1051-1052.) Documents
showing, for example, that other consumers complained about defects in 2019
Chevrolet Silverado trucks are not necessary or essential to prove defendant
acted in bad faith in its decisions regarding plaintiff’s vehicle.
Defendant’s trade secret objections
to request Nos. 2 and 7-50 are sustained.
Other Objections to Request Nos. 1 and 3-6
Request
Nos. 1 and 3-6 are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Information about a manufacturer’s policies and practices regarding
repurchases may show willfulness. (Oregel
v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1105
[“evidence that Isuzu adopted internal policies that erected hidden obstacles
to the ability of an unwary consumer to obtain redress under the Act” was
admissible for willfulness].) These
requests ask for documents about defendant’s general policies and practices in
complying with the Song-Beverly Act and about defendant’s process in evaluating
the subject vehicle. The requests ask
for reasonably particularized categories of documents. Defendant does not justify any of its
objections to these requests.
Defendant’s objections to request
Nos. 1 and 3-6 are overruled.
Disposition
Plaintiff
Jose de Jesus Delgado’s motion to compel further responses to requests for
production is denied as to
request Nos. 2 and 7-50.
Plaintiff Jose de Jesus Delgado’s
motion to compel further responses to requests for production is granted as to request Nos. 1 and 3-6. On or before October 3, 2023, defendant
General Motors LLC is ordered to provide
further verified responses without objections to requests for production, set
two, Nos. 1 and 3-6. Defendant shall
produce any additional responsive documents concurrently with its written
responses.
The court, on its own motion, continues
the final status conference to November 6, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., and the trial to
November 13, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. On or before
October 26, 2023, the parties shall file the joint trial documents and lodge
the trial binder, as required by the trial preparation order dated March 4,
2022.