Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV00877, Date: 2023-06-20 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: 22PSCV00877    Hearing Date: November 1, 2023    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE FROM GM, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS, LLC is GRANTED in part (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are MOOT); no monetary sanctions are imposed.

Background

This is a lemon law case.

On August 17, 2022, Plaintiff ANTONIO LOPEZ filed suit against Defendant GM for statutory violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (SBA).

On September 19, 2022, Defendant filed its answer.

On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant discovery motion.

On June 6, 2023, Defendant filed its opposition.

On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Reply.

On June 26, 2023, the court held an IDC.

On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Status Report.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks further production of documents as to RFPs Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 21, 23, 24, 29, 33, 39, 41, 51, 54, 56, 57, 58, 62, 66, 72, 83, 91, 96, 101, 106, 108, 109, 118, 120, 123, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 137 140, 141.

Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, Internal Knowledge and Investigation related to the Transmission Defects and Engine Defects in 2021 GMC Canyon vehicles, (ii) Summaries, Memoranda, Power Points related to the Transmission Defects and Engine Defects in 2021 GMC Canyon vehicles, (iii) Policies and Procedures related to the Song Beverly Act, (iv) Communication With Governmental Agencies and Suppliers related to the Transmission Defects and Engine Defects in 2021 GMC Canyon vehicles, and (v) Other Documents Related To The Subject Vehicle’s Defects in a basic SBA case.

Pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act, a plaintiff “has the burden to prove that (1) the vehicle had a nonconformity covered by the express warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle (the nonconformity element); (2) the vehicle was presented to an authorized representative of the manufacturer of the vehicle for repair (the presentation element); and (3) the manufacturer or his representative did not repair the nonconformity after a reasonable number of repair attempts (the failure to repair element).” (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101, citing Civ. Code, § 1793.2 and Ibrahim v. Ford Motor Co. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 878, 886-887.) In Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138 (Donlen), the court held a jury’s verdict that the manufacturer failed to bring the vehicle into conformity with warranty was supported by sufficient evidence, including evidence establishing the manufacturer was already aware of ongoing defects through service messages and technical service bulletins. (Id., at p. 153-154.)

Defendant attempts to distinguish Donlen on the grounds that the case did not rule on the propriety of discovery. (Opp. p. 7.) Defendant is correct that Donlen did not deal with a discovery dispute and instead assessed whether the jury’s verdict in a lemon law action was supported by substantial evidence. However, because Donlen such evidence supported the jury’s verdict, it is necessarily relevant and discoverable.

To the extent that Defendant cites to another case, it is an unpublished, trial court decision.

To the extent that some of the discovery is confidential/constitutes as trade secrets, Defendant could have filed for a protective order/stipulated to one with Plaintiff.

To the extent that Defendant objects on the grounds that the electronically stored information (ESI) is burdensome, GM's Opposition is silent as to the specific nature of the burden such as time, labor, and monetary costs or prejudice incurred. (Code Civ. Proc. §2019.030 [quoting the general discovery provisions].)

Thus, the court summarily overrules Defendant’s boilerplate objections as entirely devoid of merit. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 18, 21, 23, 24, 29, 33, 39, 41, 51, 54, 56, 57, 58, 62, 66, 72, 83, 91, 96, 101, 123, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 137 140, 141. (Opp. p. 8.)

As for the Subject Vehicle Discovery, this category comprises documents and information concerning the Subject Vehicle itself, defined as the "2021 GMC Canyon vehicle identification number 1GTG6FENXM1186442”, which was manufactured and/or distributed by GM. These documents are indisputably relevant to Plaintiff's SBA. (See Krotin v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 294, 303 (an automobile manufacturer's "dealers’ service records” are probative of whether a particular vehicle is defective); see also Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 328 F.R.D. 557, 562 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (records concerning the specific vehicle at issue" are relevant to proving liability under the SBA). In opposition, Defendant maintains it has provided responses to Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and the Reply appears silent on the matter. Thus, the RFPs as to Nos 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are MOOT.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted in its entirety. No monetary sanctions are imposed.