Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case 21STCV33306 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 21STCV33306, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33306 Hearing Date: October 5, 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 Special Interrogatories (Set One), Nos. 14, 20-25, 40-45, and 55. The motion is denied as to Special Interrogatory No. 25, and otherwise granted.

In this action, Plaintiff asserts one cause of action against Defendant for Breach of Express Warranty under the Song-Beverly Act. (Comp. ¶ 16.)

Plaintiff propounded the Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Defendant on November 4, 2021. (Norder Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) Defendant served responses on December 7, 2021, with verifications served on January 27, 2022. (Norder Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 2.) Plaintiff now seeks to compel Defendant’s further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 14, 20-25, 40-45, and 55.

Special Interrogatory No. 14 asks Defendant to identify all persons who performed warranty repairs on Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant objected based on vagueness and ambiguity as to the meaning of “warranty repairs,” and stated that it “refers Plaintiff to the documents it has produced in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One…” The Court agrees with Plaintiff that this response is evasive. Defendant may not excuse itself from response by redirecting Plaintiff to documents produced in response to separate discovery. Accordingly, the motion is granted as to No. 14.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 20 and 21 ask Defendant to identify all persons who inspected or tested Plaintiff’s vehicle, and to identify all documents related to any inspection or testing. Defendant objected to both interrogatories on grounds of privilege and work-product, and responded, “the SUBJECT VEHICLE was inspected and repaired by an authorized GM repair facility, not GM, as reflected on the Global Warranty History Report applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE produced by GM in response to Plaintiff’s [RFPs]. GM also states that it has not inspected or repaired Plaintiff’s vehicle.” Again, Defendant may not decline to answer by broadly referencing other documents separately produced.

Defendant further objected to No. 21 on grounds that it sought confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. Defendant must seek a protective order to address this concern. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.090.) An objection that an interrogatory calls for confidential information is not “a proper ground for objection to an otherwise proper interrogatory. Assuming that the information called for by this interrogatory is of a confidential nature which defendants do not want to have included in a public record, they presumably could have applied for a protective order… An objection to any interrogatory under section 2030 is not the equivalent of a motion for a protective order.” (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23.) Here, Defendant has made no motion for a protective order. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses is granted as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 21 and 22.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 22, 23, and 24 request the dates on which Plaintiff notified Defendant of the need for repair of any nonconformity in the vehicle, the persons to whom Plaintiff gave such notice, and the documents relating to the notice. Defendant objected based on ambiguity, legal conclusion, privilege, and work-product. Defendant’s response again merely referred Plaintiff to documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production. This response is improper. Defendant has also not set forth any arguments in support of its objections. Accordingly, the motion is granted as to Interrogatory Nos. 22 through 24.

Special Interrogatory No. 25 asks Defendant to identify all persons responsible for the customer relations department in the district or region having jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaints. The Court agrees with Defendant that this request goes beyond the scope of Plaintiff’s claims in this action, and so denies the motion as to No. 25.

Special Interrogatory No. 40 asks Defendant to “[i]dentify the individual(s) whose responsibility it is to ensure that YOU are properly determining whether a vehicle should be repurchased or replaced pursuant to the Song-Beverly Warranty Act.” No. 41 asks Defendant to describe with particularity how those individuals perform their duties. Nos. 42, 43, and 44 ask Defendant to explain with particularity all aspects of its investigation into whether Plaintiff’s vehicle was eligible for repurchase or replacement under Song-Beverly, and to identify all persons involved in and documents reviewed or obtained in that investigation. No. 45 asks Defendant to identify all individuals responsible for the decision to not repurchase or replace Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Defendant objected to each of these requests as overbroad and irrelevant. Defendant has presented no argument in support of these contentions; information related to Defendant’s compliance with the Song-Beverly Act is clearly relevant for purposes of discovery to Plaintiff’s claims under the Act. Defendant has presented no evidence showing that the interrogatories are unduly burdensome. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417 [“The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required”].) Defendant also objected to these interrogatories as seeking confidential, propriety, and trade secret information. As discussed above, this contention is not a proper basis for objection to an interrogatory. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23.) Accordingly, the motion is granted as to Nos. 40 through 45.

Finally, Special Interrogatory No. 55 asks Defendant to “state the total number of days the SUBJECT VEHICLE was out of service for warranty repairs.” Defendant stated that it lacked personal knowledge to respond and again referred Plaintiff to documents previously produced. This response is improper, and so the motion is granted as to No. 55.