Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV00761, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 22PSCV00761    Hearing Date: November 7, 2023    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE is DENIED.

Background

This is a lemon law case.

On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit.

On August 25, 2022, GM filed its answer.

On June 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

On October 25, 2023, Defendant filed its opposition.

To date, as of 11/6, no reply has been received (due 5 court days before the hearing).

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks further production of documents pertaining to Plaintiff’s own vehicle (Request Nos. 1-2, and 4; (3) Defendant’s warranty and repurchase policies, procedures, and practices (Request Nos. 3, 5-8-31, 48- 54); (3) Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model. (Request Nos. 9-17); (4) Defendant’s internal and regulatory investigations relating to consumer complaints about transmission defects in the Hydra-Matic Vehicles. (Request Nos. 18-31, 41-48, and 55-64); and (5) Information concerning applicable Technical Service Bulletins created by GM the apply directly to transmission defects in the HydraMatic Vehicles. (Request Nos. 32-40). (Motion p. 7 of 28 of PDF.)

As relevancy is a threshold requirement for discovery, the court turns to the complaint. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 2019.010; Nat’l Steel Products Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 476, 492-93).

On or around September 24, 2018, Plaintiff purchased a 2017 Chevrolet Camaro. But Plaintiff has not identified the specific nonconformity with the vehicle. In fact, the complaint makes reference to two types of transmission—GM’s Hydra-Matic 8L90 transmission or Hydra-Matic 8L45 transmission—but it is unclear which engine is at issue in this vehicle. Absent an allegation as to which transmission is at issue, the court cannot deduce what discovery is relevant.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED.[1]