Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV00177, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00177    Hearing Date: November 6, 2023    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION RESPONSES, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS is GRANTED, but subject to modifications. No sanctions imposed.

Background

This is a lemon law case.

On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed suit.

On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

On October 24, 2023, Defendant filed its opposition,

On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Reply.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks further production of documents 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, and 39.

In Request Nos. 27-32 and 37-39, Plaintiff seeks documents relating to GM’s internal policies and procedures, including training materials, for how it generally handles other consumers’ warranty claims and repurchase requests for other vehicles.

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.)

Here, the basis of relevance is that GM's knowledge of what was occurring with the subject vehicle, through the vehicle's repair history and Plaintiffs' communications, placed it on notice of the obvious nonconformities occurring in the vehicle, and that its refusal to repurchase or replace the vehicle in light of this knowledge constitutes a willful violation under the Song Beverly Act.[1]

To the extent Defendant objects on the grounds that “writings” is overbroad because it includes “handwriting, printing, photostating, photographing, video tapes, electronic mail or data, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing,” the court agrees. Writing will be redefined to the following:

“Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding ensuring compliance with state Lemon Law requirements, Defendant’s instructions to its employees, agents, and representatives regarding state Lemon Law requirements, Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding repeat repair visits, Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding defect reporting, Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding technical service bulletin drafting, Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding recall drafting, Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding Lemon Law prevention, Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding warranty claims, etc.”

To the extent that the information pertains to trade secrets, GM appears amenable to a protective order as is Plaintiff. (Reply p. 5.) Thus, any propriety information is subject to a LASC protective order.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted (no sanctions imposed), but subject to modifications above and a protective order.