Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 24NNCV00175, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 24NNCV00175, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV00175 Hearing Date: January 17, 2025 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 1/09/2025 – 8:30am
Case No. 24NNCV00175
Trial Date: 09/15/2025
Case Name: SALVADOR Z. SOLANO, an individual v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive

TENTATIVE RULING – MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RFPs

RELIEF REQUESTED¿
“Plaintiff Salvador Z. Solano (“Plaintiff”) will, and hereby does, move for an order to strike Defendant’s meritless objections, and compel further responses and documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, Nos. 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 39, and 51 (collectively, the “Requests”).

This Motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310, on the grounds that Defendant has failed to provide adequate responses or documents to Plaintiff’s Requests, which seek documents directly relevant to his claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.”

(Pl. Mot. p.1.)

Preliminary Procedural
Moving Party: Plaintiff, Salvador Z. Solano
Responding Party: Defendant, General Motors, LLC

16/21 Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b)):Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300(c)):Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Ok

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Gabriel Eredia Declaration; Proposed Order; Separate Statement

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Separate Statement; Ryan Kay Declaration

Reply Papers: Reply; Supplemental Eredia Declaration; Evidentiary Objections to Kay Declaration

BACKGROUND
On 03/11/2024, Plaintiff, Salvador Z. Solano, filed the instant action against Defendant, General Motors LLC, alleging five causes of action for: (1) Violation of Civil Code 1793.2(d); (2) Violation of Civil Code 1793.2(b); (3) Violation of Civil Code 1793.2(a)(3); (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty Civil Code 1791.2(a), Section 1794; and (5) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability Civil Code 1791.1, Section 1794.

The instant action pertains to Plaintiff’s September 8, 2019 purchase of a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado.

Plaintiff alleges that during the warranty period the subject vehicle developed defects to the engine; electrical system; transmission system; braking system; and any additional complaints made by Plaintiff, whether or not they are contained in the records or any repair orders. (Compl. ¶ 12.)

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

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.”

(CCP § 2031.310(a).)

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.)

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, Plaintiff’s motion is 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.

TENTATIVE RULING (TR)

TR RFP 16
Defendant’s objections in response are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 16 is GRANTED; Defendant is to provide code-compliant responses without objection within 10 calendar days of this Court’s order.

TR RFP 19
Under CCP § 2031.310(b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”

Plaintiff’s RFP 19 requested, “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to the POWERTRAIN DEFECT, including but not limited to any databases in YOUR possession with information from dealers, service departments, parts departments, or warranty departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure.”

Defendant’s objections on overbroad and irrelevancy are sustained.

Plaintiff has the burden on this motion to establish good cause/relevancy.

Plaintiff’s subject vehicle is a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado. This request is not limited to any year, period of time, or specific model of a vehicle.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to RFP 19 is DENIED.

TR RFP 20
Defendant’s objections in response are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 20 is GRANTED; Defendant is to provide code-compliant responses without objection within 10 calendar days of this Court’s order.

TR RFP 21
Defendant’s objections in response are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 21 is GRANTED; Defendant is to provide code-compliant responses without objection within 10 calendar days of this Court’s order.

TR RFP 22
Defendant’s objections in response are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 22 is GRANTED; Defendant is to provide code-compliant responses without objection within 10 calendar days of this Court’s order.

TR RFP 25
RFP 25 suffers from the same defects explained in this Court’s ruling in TR 19. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to RFP 25 is DENIED.

TR RFP 26
Defendant’s objections in response are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 26 is GRANTED; Defendant is to provide code-compliant responses without objection within 10 calendar days of this Court’s order.

TR RFP 27
Defendant’s objections in response are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 27 is GRANTED; Defendant is to provide code-compliant responses without objection within 10 calendar days of this Court’s order.

TR RFP 39
Defendant did not successfully defend its objections to RFP 39 in Opposition. Defendant stated it was complying in part, but Defendant did not provide a response compliant with CCP § 2031.240. Defendant’s objections in response are overruled. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 39 is GRANTED; Defendant is to provide code-compliant responses without objection within 10 calendar days of this Court’s order.

TR 51
RFP 51 requests, “All DOCUMENTS which evidence YOUR organizational charts of people within YOUR customer service call center or prelitigation department.”

The Court will hear argument.

Sanctions
Neither party requested sanctions.