Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case 21STCV33306 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 21STCV33306, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33306 Hearing Date: August 31, 2022 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Pulido vs. General Motors LLC, et. al., Case No. 21STCV33306

Tentative Ruling re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Plaintiff Miguel Pulido (Plaintiff) moves to compel Defendant General Motors, LLC’s (Defendant) further responses to the Requests for Production (Set One) Nos. 1, 6-8, 9, 15, 16, 19, 24, 27, 31, and 33-59. The motion is granted as to Request Nos. 1, 6-8, 9, 15, 16, 19, 24, 27, 37-48, 51, and 54-58. The motion is denied as to Request Nos. 31, 33-36, 50, 52, 53, and 59.

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) It is not necessary for the motion to show that the material sought will be admissible in evidence. “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (See Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586-588; see also CCP §§ 2017.010, 2019.030(a)(1) [Information is discoverable if it is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.];¿Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612.)

“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation]. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

A motion to compel further responses must also be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted.¿¿(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).)

Plaintiffs propounded the Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) on Defendant on November 4, 2021. (Norder Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Defendant served unverified responses on December 7, 2021, and served verifications on January 27, 2021. (Norder Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B.)

Plaintiff has shown good cause for the Requests seeking documents and/or communications related to Plaintiff’s vehicle. These are Request Nos. 1, 6-8, 15, 16, 19, 24, and 27. Defendant has not presented any argument in support of its objections to these Requests and so those objections are overruled.

Next, Request No. 31 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS relating to the Customer Call Center, including but not limited to, all flow charts, processes, and/or scripts.” Request No. 33 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS related to the Technical Hot Line.” Request Nos. 34 through 36 seek documents related to efforts by Defendant “to reduce the number of repeat repair attempts for a customer,” “to reduce the number of reacquired vehicles,” and those “related to repeat repair procedures for remedying customer concerns.” The Court agrees with Defendant that these requests are overbroad and not sufficiently tailored to Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the motion is denied as to Request Nos. 31 and 33-36.

Request Nos. 37-48 seek information related to complaints from other California owners of cars of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle, regarding issues identical to those which affected Plaintiff’s vehicle. Request Nos. 9, 54, and 55 seek recall documents and technical service bulletins relating to Plaintiff’s vehicle. Documents encompassed by these Requests are relevant for purposes of discovery to Plaintiffs’ Song-Beverly claims, because they relate to warranty repairs on vehicles of the same make, model, and year as Plaintiff’s vehicle.

“Under Song-Beverly, ‘[i]f the buyer establishes that the failure to comply was willful,’ the buyer may be entitled to receive a civil penalty, up to two times the amount of actual damages. (Civ. Code § 1794(c).) Plaintiff’s requested relief includes the civil penalty for willful violations under Civ. Code § 1794(c). (Comp., Prayer D.) Information regarding Defendant’s knowledge of the defects in other cars of the same make, model, and year as Plaintiff’s vehicle may be relevant as to whether Defendant’s alleged failure to comply with the Act was willful. (See Jensen v. BMW of North America, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2019) 328 F.R.D. 557, 562-63 [“[I]nformation regarding whether the same defects were reported . . . 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”].) Accordingly, Plaintiff has shown good cause for these Requests. The motion is granted as to Request Nos. 9, 37-48, 54, and 55.

Request No. 50 seeks documents “related to the wiring diagrams for any systems related to the SUBJECT VEHICLE’S concerns.” Request Nos. 52 and 53 seek documents related to the “As-built data” and the “VIN digit breakdown” for Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff has not presented any information supporting the relevance of these documents to his claims. Accordingly, the motion is denied as to these requests.

Request No. 51 seeks all documents “related to the repair procedures performed on” Plaintiff’ vehicle. Request Nos. 56 and 57 similarly seek all documents related to the repair and diagnostic procedures consulted and followed in performing repairs on Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff has shown good cause for discovery into the repairs performed on his vehicle, given that his claims in this action arise out of Defendant’s alleged failure to conform the vehicle pursuant to those repairs. The motion is therefore granted as to Request Nos. 51, 56, and 57.

Finally, Request No. 58 seeks documents given to Teleperformance to assess whether a vehicle qualifies for replacement under the Song-Beverly Act, and No. 59 requests Defendant’s operating agreement with Teleperformance. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant uses Teleperformance, Inc. to field and investigate consumer complaints of nonconformities with Defendant’s vehicles. (Separate Statement p. 47.) The documents related to Teleperformance’s evaluation of vehicle repurchases are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this action, which are in part based on Defendant’s alleged failure to repurchase the vehicle. However, Plaintiff has not shown the relevance of Teleperformance’s operating agreement with Defendant. Accordingly, the motion is granted as to Request No. 58 and denied as to No. 59.