Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV09885, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV09885 Hearing Date: January 8, 2025 Dept: 52
Form Interrogatories
Plaintiff
Timothy Kornegay moves to compel defendant General Motors LLC to further
respond to form interrogatories Nos 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, and 17.1. A party propounding interrogatories may move
to compel further responses when an answer “is evasive or incomplete,” “[a]n
exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is
unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate,” or
“[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2030.300(a).)
Form interrogatory No. 1.1 asks: “State
the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON who
prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these
interrogatories.” Defendant responded, “GM
is a corporate Defendants [sic]; therefore, these answers were not prepared by
any one person. These answers, prepared
with assistance from GM’s counsel listed above, have been verified by an
authorized representative of GM.” That
answer is evasive. The question explicitly
contemplates that multiple individuals may be involved. It asks for information about “each person”
and asks about those people’s “relationship to you,” where “you” means
the responding party. That the
responding party is an LLC does not mean it can avoid answering the question asked.
Form interrogatory No. 12.1 asks
defendant to state the name, address, and telephone number of each person who
witnessed the “incident,” made statements at the scene, heard statements by
someone at the scene, or has knowledge of the “incident.” Defendant made various objections to this
interrogatory before providing a substantive answer. Defendant did not substantiate its objections. Defendant’s objections are overruled.
Substantively, defendant responded:
“Other than (i) Plaintiff, (ii) employees of the dealership(s) where
Plaintiff’s vehicle was serviced, and (iii) GM call center advisors with whom
Plaintiff may have communicated regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE, GM is not aware
of any other individuals who may have responsive information. Accordingly, and pursuant to California Civil
Code Section 2030.230, GM refers Plaintiff to the following documents, which GM
is producing in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents,
in which Plaintiff may identify the individuals with the information sought:
any incidentally obtained repair orders, Repair Order Details, any Service
Request Activity Report(s), and the Global Warranty History Report regarding
the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”
That answer is evasive and includes
an unwarranted exercise of the option to produce documents under section
2030.230. GM has not shown that
answering requires “the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract,
audit, or summary of or from [its] documents.”
(Ibid.) Defendant has not
shown that the documents even include all of the information requested.
Form interrogatory No. 15.1
asks defendant to state all facts and identify people and documents relevant to
each denial of a material allegation and each affirmative defense in its
answer. Defendant responded: “GM’s investigation and
discovery into this matter is ongoing. Indeed, it has not had an opportunity to
depose Plaintiff, or inspect the SUBJECT VEHICLE. Consequently, it is not possible at this time
to state all facts upon which GM bases its denials and affirmative defenses,
which GM asserted to preserve them. In
addition, documents and the identities of persons with knowledge of facts
supporting GM’s denials and affirmative defenses are not completely known at
this time. Some of these witnesses may
include experts. Answering further, GM
intends to rely upon the documents it is producing in response to Plaintiff’s
Requests for Production of Documents. GM reserves the right to supplement or
amend this Response during the course of this proceeding.”
This answer is evasive and
incomplete. “If an interrogatory cannot
be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (CCP § 2030.220(b).) “[A]
responding party generally may not respond to interrogatories
just by asserting its ‘inability to respond.’ ”
(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare
Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 406.) “[A] party has a general duty to conduct a
reasonable investigation to obtain responsive information and must furnish
information from all sources under his or her control.” (Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior
Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504.)
This answer
has little substance other than saying defendant does not know yet and will
answer later. That is not a valid
answer.
Form interrogatory No. 17.1 asks
the responding party to provide
information about its basis for not admitting requests for admission. Defendant made various objections to this
interrogatory before providing a substantive answer. In its opposition, defendant did not
substantiate any of its objections.
Defendant’s objections are overruled. Substantively, defendant’s response to No.
17.1, subparts (b) and (c) is equivalent to the response it gave to No.
15.1. Defendant’s response to No. 17.1, subpart
(d) is equivalent to the responsive it gave to No. 12.1. These responses are insufficient for the same
reasons stated above.
Special Interrogatories
Plaintiff
moves to compel defendant to further respond to special interrogatories Nos. 14,
38-43, and 53.
Defendant
objected to several questions 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’s opposition brief and separate
statement cite no evidence in support of this argument. One of the opposing declarations of Kyle
Roybal refers to the declaration of Huizhen Lu, purportedly attached as an
exhibit. It is not attached.
Defendant
made meritless objections and gave inadequate responses to Nos. 14, 38, 39, 41,
and 43. Those interrogatories ask
defendant to identify various categories of individuals. Defendant does not meet its burden of
justifying its objections. These interrogatories
are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence regarding defendant’s
potential liability for civil penalties for willfully violating the
Song-Beverly Act. For Nos. 14 and 41,
defendant also responded substantively with a reference to documents under Code
of Civil Procedure section 2030.230. Doing
so was inadequate for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the form
interrogatories.
Defendant
gave sufficient answers to Nos. 40 and 42.
Special interrogatory No. 40 asks: “Explain with particularity all
aspects of YOUR investigation into whether the SUBJECT VEHICLE qualified or was
eligible for repurchase or replacement pursuant to the Song-Beverly Warranty
Act.” Substantively, defendant
responded, “GM states that it is informed and believes that verifiable concerns
were resolved, and the SUBJECT VEHICLE has been adequately repaired within a
reasonable number of repair attempts. To
the extent that Plaintiff or a non-GM authorized facility caused or contributed
to Plaintiff’s concerns or to the extent Plaintiff’s failure to properly
maintain the SUBJECT VEHICLE caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s concern, such
concerns are not covered under the warranty. GM evaluates each case in good faith in
accordance with the provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.” Defendant also referred plaintiff to various
documents it produced.
Defendant’s response to this
open-ended question was valid. Plaintiff
fails to articulate what additional detail defendant must provide. If defendant were required to answer with
more particularity than this response, there would be no practical way to
determine how much particularity is enough.
Special interrogatory No. 42 asks
defendant to identify all documents reviewed or obtained in the
investigation. Defendant’s response
included referring to the documents it produced. That answers the question, which directly
asked about documents.
Finally, defendant made meritless
objections and gave an incomplete response to No. 53. That interrogatory asks, “Please state the
total number of days the SUBJECT VEHICLE was out of service for warranty
repairs.” Defendant does not justify its
objections. “An interrogatory may relate
to whether another party is making a certain contention” or a “contention that
relates to fact or the application of law to fact.” (CCP § 2030.010(b).) This interrogatory seeks relevant and
admissible information. Plaintiff can
establish a presumption in his favor if “[t]he vehicle is out of service by
reason of repair of nonconformities by the manufacturer or its agents for a
cumulative total of more than 30 calendar days since delivery of the vehicle to
the buyer.” (Civ. Code, §
1793.22(b)(3).) A complete and straightforward
answer requires specifying a number of days.
Defendant did not do so.
Defendant’s objections to No. 53 are overruled.
Requests for Production
Plaintiff
moves to compel further responses to requests for production Nos. 1-3, 14-16,
31-33, 37-57, and 66. 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).)
Plaintiff
shows good cause to compel further responses to Nos. 1-3. No. 1
demands: “All repair orders including the front and back of each page, any
handwritten notes, any hard cards and accounting copies regarding, pertaining,
or relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” No.
2 demands: “All parts invoices regarding, pertaining, or relating to the
SUBJECT VEHICLE.” No. 3 demands: “All
warranty repair documents regarding, pertaining, or relating to the SUBJECT
VEHICLE.”
In
response, defendant made various objections.
It does not justify them. These
requests all seek discoverable documents.
Defendant’s objections to Nos. 1-3 are overruled.
Substantively, defendant responded to that it would comply in part and
produce some documents. For Nos. 1-3, it
stated it would produce “any repair orders that GM may have obtained from
GM-authorized dealerships who may have serviced, maintained, or repaired the
SUBJECT VEHICLE.” For No. 3, it also
stated it would produce “the Global Warranty History Report.”
Those responses are
incomplete. Agreeing to produce certain
documents is insufficient. A statement
of compliance must state that “all documents or things in the demanded category
that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no
objection is being made will be included in the production.” (CCP § 2031.220.) A statement of compliance must include that
precise language because it states under oath not only that the responding
party will produce specified documents, but also that the responding party is
not withholding any responsive documents.
Defendant’s responses amount to unilaterally changing the category of
documents. If defendant has no “parts
invoices”, for example, in its possession, custody, or control, then it must provide
a verified representation of inability to comply pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 2031.230.
Plaintiff shows good cause to
compel further responses to Nos. 14-16, which demand documents evidencing
communications regarding the subject vehicle or communications with
plaintiff. Defendant does not justify
its objections. These requests are
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Documents evidencing the process defendant used
to evaluate plaintiff’s vehicle may show willfulness as required for civil
penalties. (See Oregel v.
American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90
Cal.App.4th 1094, 1105; Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23
Cal.App.4th 174, 186 [“A decision made without the use of reasonably available
information germane to that decision is not a reasonable, good faith decision”].) Defendant’s
objections to Nos. 14-16 are overruled.
Substantively, defendant responded
that it would comply in part and produce various documents. This statement of partial compliance is
inadequate for the same reason as for Nos. 1-3.
Plaintiff
does not show good cause to compel further responses to Nos. 31-33. They demand: “31: All DOCUMENTS relating to
the Customer Call Center, including but not limited to, all flow charts,
processes, and/or scripts. 32: All
DOCUMENTS relating to any Customer Loyalty Program or After Warranty Assistance
Program that YOU had in effect during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 33: All DOCUMENTS related to the Technical
Hotline.” These categories are not
reasonably particularized. Plaintiff
does not show that requesting “all documents relating” to these things is
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant’s objections to Nos. 31-33 are sustained.
Defendant made meritless objections
in response to Nos. 37-57. These
requests seek all documents regarding complaints made by other California consumers
with the same model vehicle concerning numerous specified issues plaintiff
experienced with the subject vehicle.
Defendant objected and refused to produce any documents. Defendant does not substantiate its
objections. Evidence about potential defects in an entire class of vehicles may
support plaintiff’s claims. (See Donlen
v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154 [testimony about the
transmission model used in a wide range of vehicles, including plaintiff’s, was
admissible]; Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334,
346-347 [manufacturer’s internal emails about problems in class of vehicles
supported jury’s finding of willful violation].) Documents showing complaints by other drivers
about similar problems may support the claim that defendant willfully violated
the Song-Beverly Act. (Jensen v. BMW
of North America, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2019) 328 F.R.D. 557, 562–563
[“information regarding whether the same defects were reported to BMW in other
cars of the same make, model, and year as Plaintiff’s subject vehicle could
conceivably be relevant to whether BMW acted reasonably in denying Plaintiff’s
warranty claim”].) Defendant’s
objections to request Nos. 37-57 are overruled.
Finally,
plaintiff shows good cause to compel a further response to No. 66. It demanded: “All DOCUMENTS regarding
diagnostic procedures consulted and followed while diagnosing
Plaintiff’s concern for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”
Defendant does not justify its objections. Its objections are overruled. Substantively, defendant stated it would
produce “any repair orders for the SUBJECT VEHICLE that GM may have obtained
from GM-authorized dealerships; and any Service Request Activity Report(s) and
the Global Warranty History Report for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” This response is inadequate for the same
reasons discussed for Nos. 1-3.
Disposition
Plaintiff
Timothy Kornegay’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is
granted. Defendant
General Motors LLC is ordered to provide
further verified responses without objections to form interrogatories Nos 1.1,
12.1, 15.1, and 17.1 within 30 days.
Plaintiff Timothy Kornegay’s motion
to compel further responses to special interrogatories is granted in part. Defendant
General Motors LLC is ordered to provide
further verified responses without objections to special interrogatories Nos. 14,
38, 39, 41, 43, and 53 within 30 days.
Plaintiff Timothy Kornegay’s motion
to compel further responses to requests for production is granted in part.
Defendant General Motors LLC is ordered to provide further verified responses without objections to requests for
production Nos. 1-3, 14-16, 37-57, and 66 within 30 days. Defendant shall produce any additional
responsive documents concurrently with its written responses.