Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV15125, Date: 2025-02-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV15125 Hearing Date: February 5, 2025 Dept: 52
Form Interrogatories
Plaintiff
Marquez moves to compel defendant General Motors LLC to further respond to form
interrogatories Nos 12.1 and 15.1. 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. 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 include all 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 sufficient
answer.
Special Interrogatories
Plaintiff
Marquez moves to compel defendant to further respond to special interrogatories
Nos. 14, 40-43, and 51.
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 does not meet its burden of showing
the privilege applies.
Defendant
made meritless objections and gave inadequate responses to Nos. 14, 41, and 43,
which 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’s objections
to special interrogatories Nos. 14, 41, and 43 are overruled.
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. 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. 51. 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. 51 are overruled.
Requests for Production
Plaintiff
moves to compel further responses to requests for production Nos. 1, 9, 34-42,
and 48-49. 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 No. 1. 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.” Defendant made various objections in response. It does not justify them. This request seeks discoverable documents. Defendant’s objections to requests for
production No. 1 are overruled.
Plaintiff shows good cause to
compel further responses to Nos. 9, 37-42, 48, and 49, which seek documents
related to the subject vehicle and all applicable technical service bulletins
and recalls. These requests are
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Defendant objected made numerous
objections. Primarily, it argues these
requests are overly broad because they concern more than plaintiff’s vehicle
itself. 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”].) And, though the
statute’s disclosure requirements do not apply to this case, the Legislature
recently enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, which indicates
discovery is not limited to plaintiff’s vehicle. (Id., subd. (h).)
Defendant’s
objections to request Nos. 9, 37-42, 48, and 49 are overruled.
Plaintiff does not show good cause
to compel further responses to requests for production Nos. 34-36. They demand: “34. All DOCUMENTS related to
efforts by YOU to reduce the number of repeat repair attempts for a customer.; 35.
All DOCUMENTS related to efforts by YOU to reduce the number of reacquired vehicles.;
[and] 36. All DOCUMENTS related to repeat repair procedures for remedying
customer concerns.” These requests are
overly broad and are not “reasonably particulariz[ed]” categories of
documents. (CCP § 2031.030(c)(1).) Categories are not reasonably particularized
when “[t]here is no indication the ‘categories’ bear any relationship to the
manner in which” the responding party “maintains its records” such that the
responding party must search “to see what it can find to fit [the demanding
party’s] definitions, instructions and categories.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior
Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 222.)
Defendant’s objections to Nos.
34-36 are sustained.
Disposition
Plaintiff
Sonia Marquez’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. 12.1
and 15.1 within 30 days.
Plaintiff Sonia Marquez’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,
41, 43, and 51 within 30 days.
Plaintiff Sonia Marquez’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, 9, 37-42, 48, and 49 within 30 days. Defendant shall produce any additional
responsive documents concurrently with its written responses.