Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 22GDCV00499, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22GDCV00499 Hearing Date: November 3, 2023 Dept: E
Case Name: MANUEL VALLE, an individual, and JOSE
VALLE, an individual, v. GENERAL MOTORS, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
and DOES 1-10
Hearing Date: 11/03/2023 – 10:00am
Case No: 22GDCV00499
Trial Date: 11/27/2023
TENTATIVE
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiffs
MANUEL VALLE AND JOSE VALLE (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order to strike
Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC’s (“Defendant” or “GM”) objections and compel
further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One,
numbers 1- 70 (collectively, the “RFPs”).
Plaintiffs
bring this Motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.310,
and 2031.320, on the grounds that Defendant failed to provide adequate
responses to Plaintiffs’ RFPs, which seek documents relevant to their
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”) causes of action.
Moreover,
Plaintiffs seek sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.310,
2023,030, et seq for Defendant’s misuse and abuse of the discovery act.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs
filed their Complaint on 08/09/2022 alleging four causes of action against Defendant
for: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty; (2)
Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty; (3) Violation of the
Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2; and (4) Fraud – Fraudulent Inducement –
Concealment.
Plaintiffs
allege that on June 17, 2017, they purchased a 2017 Chevrolet Colorado, having
VIN No.: 1GCGSBEA9H1223410
(“the Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiffs allege that the Subject Vehicle was
delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and
developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but
not limited to, structural, suspension and transmission system defects.
PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS
45-Day Requirement
Unless
notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified
response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific
later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in
writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to
the demand. (CCP §2031.310(c).)
Here, this motion appears timely.
Meet and Confer
“The
motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.” (CCP §2031.310(b)(2).)
Here, Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred. (Jacobson
Decl. ¶39.) Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff did not meet and confer is
unavailing.
LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION
CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document
inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if
the demanding party deems that:
“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is
incomplete.
(2) A
representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
(3)
An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”
ANALYSIS
Both Plaintiffs’ motion and
Defendant’s Opposition are somewhat difficult to decipher.
In
general, Plaintiffs’ motion argues that the discovery it seeks further
responses to falls into the following categories: (1) Plaintiffs’ own vehicle
(Request Nos. 1-14); (2) Defendant’s warranty and repurchase policies,
procedures, and practices (Request Nos. 15-20); (3) Defendant’s internal
knowledge and regulatory investigations relating to and concerning the
Transmission Defects in the Hydra-Matic Vehicles (Request Nos. 21-35); (4)
Information concerning applicable Technical Service Bulletins created by GM
that apply directly to transmission defects in the Hydra-Matic Vehicles.
(Request Nos. 36-49); (5) Defendant’s summaries, PowerPoints, memoranda,
reports, warnings, investigations, assessments, engineering reviews, executive
reviews, executive summaries, etc. regarding the Transmission Defects in the
Hydra-Matic Vehicles (Request Nos. 50-60); (6) Defendant’s documents showing
communications with Governmental Agencies and suppliers regarding the
Transmission Defects in the Hydra-Matic Vehicles (Request Nos. 61-66); (7)
Defendant’s documents pertaining to customer complaints of the same or similar
defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model (Request Nos.
67-70)
TENTATIVE RULINGS (TR) for RFPs, Set One
Plaintiffs’
motion stated it was compelling further response to RFPs, Set One, numbers
1-70; however, Plaintiffs’ separate statement did not include all RFPs from
1-70. The Court will only address the RFPs listed in Plaintiffs’ Separate
Statement.
TR RFP 1
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further
responses to RFP 1 is GRANTED. The objections asserted by Defendant in the
first sentence of its response are overruled. To the extent Defendant objected on
confidentiality/proprietary trade secret info, attorney-client privilege, and
work-product, Defendant’s response does not appear to be code compliant. Defendant’s
response does not appear to comply with CCP §§ 2031.240 and 2031.220.
TR RFP 2
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further
responses to RFP 2 is GRANTED. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant’s
response is not compliant with 2031.220.
TR RFP 4
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further
responses to RFP 4 is GRANTED. Defendant’s objections asserted in the first
five sentences of its response are overruled. To the extent Defendant objected
on grounds of confidential/proprietary trade secret info, Defendant’s response
does not appear code compliant. Defendant’s response does not appear to comply
with CCP §§ 2031.240 and 2031.220.
TR RFP 5
Plaintiffs’
motion to compel further responses to RFP 5 is GRANTED. Defendant’s objections asserted in the first five sentences
of its response are overruled. To the extent Defendant objected on
confidentiality/proprietary trade secret info, attorney-client privilege, and
work-product, Defendant’s response does not appear to be code compliant.
Defendant’s response does not appear to comply with CCP §§ 2031.240 and
2031.220.
TR RFP 9 & 10
Under CCP § 2031.310 (b)(1), “The
motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the
discovery sought by the demand.”
“In
the more specific context of a demand for production of a tangible thing, the
party who asks the trial court to compel production must show “good cause” for
the request—but unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of
attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of
relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96
Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)
Here,
the Court is uncertain as to how Plaintiffs demonstrated good cause. These two
requests don’t appear to be limited to the same transmission as the subject
vehicle in vehicles of the same make, model, and year of the subject vehicle.
As phrased, these requests can pertain to cars of completely different makes,
models, and years that are entirely different than the subject vehicle so long
as that vehicle had the same transmission as the subject vehicle. Plaintiffs
cite to Donlen v. Ford to support its argument, but Donlen seems
to go against Plaintiffs’ argument because it appears as if Plaintiffs argue
that Donlen allowed testimony on the F-450 transmission in other F-450
vehicles. Here, Plaintiffs’ request appears as if it can pertain to any
vehicle, even if it isn’t a Chevrolet Colorado, so long as it has the same
transmission.
Plaintiffs’
motion to compel further response to RFPs 9 & 10 are DENIED.
TR RFPs 11, 12, 13, 14,
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further
responses to RFP 11 is GRANTED. Defendant’s objections asserted in the first
six sentences of its response are overruled. To the extent Defendant objected
on confidentiality/proprietary trade secret info, attorney-client privilege,
and work-product, Defendant’s response does not appear to be code compliant.
Defendant’s response does not appear to comply with CCP §§ 2031.240 and
2031.220.
TR RFPs 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69,
and 70
Under
CCP § 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good
cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”
“In the more specific context of a
demand for production of a tangible thing, the party who asks the trial court
to compel production must show “good cause” for the request—but unless there is
a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is
met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services
Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)
Here, the Court is uncertain as to
how Plaintiffs demonstrated good cause.
Plaintiffs’
motion to compel further response to RFPs 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24,
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,
45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,
65, 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70 are DENIED.
TR RFP 21
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further
responses to RFP 21 is GRANTED. Defendant’s objections asserted in the first
six sentences of its response are overruled. To the extent Defendant objected
on confidentiality/proprietary trade secret info, attorney-client privilege,
and work-product, Defendant’s response does not appear to be code compliant.
Defendant’s response does not appear to comply with CCP §§ 2031.240.
Applicable to the entire ruling
To the extent that this Court
compelled further responses to RFPs in this ruling, the RFPs wherein objections
were overruled, Defendant is to provide further, verified, code compliant
responses without objections within 5 days. To the extent that this Court
didn’t overrule objections on confidentiality/proprietary trade secret info,
attorney-client privilege, and work-product, if Defendant plans to stand behind
those objections, it needs to provide further verified, code compliant
responses within 5 days, standing behind those objections properly.
Plaintiffs
argued in their motion that Defendant waived all objections in its initial
responses because verifications were not provided. The Court does not find this
argument availing: “If, in response to a demand for inspection and production
of documents, a party files a timely but unverified response
raising objections, including privilege, but also tenders other fact-specific
responses, does the lack of verification result in a waiver of all objections?
The trial court found that it did. We conclude to the contrary and grant a
peremptory writ of mandate to compel the trial court to reverse its ruling.” (Food
4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 652.)
SANCTIONS
Except
as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction
under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person,
or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further
response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction
acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP §2031.310(h).)
Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel does not state how much in
sanctions are requested in the notice of motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel states only
how much in sanctions are requested in the motion itself. Given that this
motion was granted in part and denied in part, sanctions are not awarded to
either party.