Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV19488, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV19488 Hearing Date: February 29, 2024 Dept: 52
Plaintiffs Hugo Valerio and Genesis
Valerio move to compel defendant General Motors LLC to provide further
responses to requests for production Nos. 16-21. A
party propounding requests for production 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).)
Plaintiffs’
requests for production Nos. 16-21 demand various categories of documents regarding
the “POWERTRAIN DEFECT”: documents concerning (16) internal analysis or
investigation, (17) communications about the defect, (18) warranty extensions,
technical service bulletins and recalls, (19) customer complaints, (20) failure
rates, and (21) “fixes” for the defect.
Defendant made numerous objections,
including that the term “POWERTRAIN DEFECT” is “vague and ambiguous.” That objection is valid. Plaintiffs’ requests for production define
the term as follows: “The term ‘POWERTRAIN DEFECT’ shall be understood to mean
such defects which result in symptoms including, but not limited to: Suspension
rattling; Suspension noise when going over bumps; Whining noise from
transmission; Whining noise from transmission at idle; Transmission noise upon
acceleration; Transmission replacement; Engine shakes when stopping; Engine
rough; Delay in take-off after stop; Transmission hard jolt; TSB 16-NA-019; TSB
PIP5621D; TSB PIP5928A; TSB 20-NA-187; and any other concern identified in the
repair history for the subject 2023 Chevrolet Silverado; Vehicle Identification
Number 3GCPACEK2PG112473.” (Bedwan Decl.,
Ex. 3, p. 3, ¶ 5.)
Defendant cannot feasibly respond
to these requests because each incorporates this overly broad and ambiguous
definition of “POWERTRAIN DEFECT.” This
term has two catchall provisions: both that the symptoms are “not limited to”
those identified, and that it includes “any other concern identified in the
repair history” for the subject vehicle.
Moreover, several of the 10 symptoms identified are themselves unclear,
such as “Suspension rattling,” “Suspension noise when going over bumps,” and
“Engine rough.” Finally, this definition
introduces another level of ambiguity because, rather than referring to the
symptoms themselves, it refers to “such defects which result in” those many symptoms.
A request for production must
“[d]esignate the documents” to be produced “either by specifically describing
each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of
item.” (CCP § 2031.030(c)(1).) These categories of documents about the “POWERTRAIN
DEFECT” are not reasonably particularized.
Defendant’s objections to requests for production
Nos. 16-21 are sustained.
Plaintiffs Hugo Valerio and Genesis
Valerio’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production is denied.