Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV01940, Date: 2024-06-20 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: 23PSCV01940    Hearing Date: June 20, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Kim Hernandez’s Motion To Compel The Deposition Of Defendant General Motors, Llc’s Person Most Qualified, With Production Of Documents And Request For Monetary Sanctions In The Amount Of $3,000.00 is GRANTED (RFP Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11) and DENIED in part (RFP Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 9); sanctions are not imposed.

This is a lemon law case.

On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff KIM HERNANDEZ filed suit against Defendant General Motors, LLC for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act arising from her purchase of a 2021 Chevrolet Silverado that suffered from defects related to the transmission, valve body, TCM, rattle, no start, and other defects.

On August 2, 2023, Defendant filed its answer.

On April 22, 2024, the parties appeared before the court for an IDC wherein at the conclusion the court allowed for the filing of a formal motion.

On May 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

On May 29, 2024, Defendant filed its opposition.

On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed its reply.

Legal Standard 

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action … without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”  (CCP § 2025.450, subd. (a).)  

The motion must be accompanied by a good faith meet and confer declaration under section 2016.040[1] or, “when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”  (CCP § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)   

Discussion

At the outset, the court notes that both parties’ papers are seemingly generic. For example, Plaintiff’s motion, though 14 pages, argues that the discovery at issue is discoverable because “The categories of testimony and document requests are universally discoverable in lemon law cases. Further they are straightforward, relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, are not overbroad in scope, are not privileged or otherwise protected in any way, and are in accordance with the Court’s Case Management Order issued on January 12, 2024.” (Motion pp. 11-12.)[2] That, however, does not specifically identify how each discovery request is relevant to this Plaintiff’s express and implied warranty and damages claims. As for GM’s opposition and separate statement, that too is minimal in analysis as it conclusively contends that “GM’s objections to Plaintiff’ notice are well-founded because Plaintiff is seeking overly broad and irrelevant information.” (Opp. p. 4:3-4.)

The following RFPs are at issue:

REQUEST NO. 1: WRITINGS which refer to, evidence or reflect service or repairs performed on the SUBJECT VEHICLE at any time, including, but not limited to, the warranty repair history, service request documents, work orders, repair orders, labor receipts, parts order forms, computer printouts, parts receipts and billing statements.

REQUEST NO. 2: Any and all correspondence with any person, entity or organization other than YOUR attorney relating or referring in any way to Plaintiff or the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST NO. 3: Your California lemon law policy and procedure manual(s) used by your dealers or authorized customer service representatives.

REQUEST NO. 4: Your Customer Relations file regarding Plaintiff or the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST NO. 5: WRITINGS provided to YOUR Customer Relations Representatives, which refer, reflect, or relate to rules, policies or procedures concerning the issuance of vehicle purchase refunds or replacements pursuant to the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

REQUEST NO. 6: YOUR Technical Service Bulletin Index, and any TSB’s that relate to the WARRANTY NONCONFORMITY(S) alleged in this case.

REQUEST NO. 7: Any recalls that apply to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST NO. 8: WRITINGS that YOU reviewed in determining not to repurchase or replace the SUBJECT VEHICLE prior to the date Plaintiff’ lawsuit was filed.

REQUEST NO. 9: YOUR lemon law policy and procedure manual

REQUEST NO. 10: A copy of any photographs or videos of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST NO. 11: WRITINGS that document the total number of vehicles of the same make, model and year as the SUBJECT VEHICLE that have been repurchased by YOU due to the same WARRANTY NONCONFORMITY(S) alleged in this case pursuant to California’s lemon law.

As some requests, GM that it has “agreed to produce a witness to testify about repairs made to Plaintiff’s vehicle, recalls and technical service bulletins, warranties, and the reasons that GM did not repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle.” (Opp. p. 1:23-25.) Moreover, these requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. After all, Plaintiff seeks information regarding this specific vehicle or vehicles of the same year, make and model.[3]

Thus, the motion is GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks GM’s manual regarding policies and procedures, Plaintiff argues that GM “must produce those written policies and procedures” and cites to Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, 1198- 1199 for the proposition that the “court in Song-Beverly Act litigation admitted evidence of Ford’s corporate policies and practices as it was relevant to civil penalty damages.” (SS p. 30.) But the Johnson case provides no such holding. The manual at issue was not the company’s manual, but the vehicle policy manual. (Id. at p. 1199.) Plaintiff’s other citation to Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094 is equally misplaced as any discussion was as to the owner’s manual. Therefore, as Defendant has set forth valid objections, including but not limited to, the request seeking potentially confidential information and/or work product privilege and Plaintiff has not met its burden establishing why a further response is required, the motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 9.

As for sanctions, Plaintiff contends that it has been trying to depose GM since July 2023, that the parties have met and conferred 21 times, and that GM failed to appear at two properly noticed depositions. Though the latter is concerning, Defendant clarifies that they did object to the depositions, which is contrary to Plaintiff’s characterization. (See e.g., Motion p. 2 [despite failing to raise any objection to the properly noticed deposition, GM failed to appear at the deposition].) Therefore, as the motion was granted and denied in part, the court declines to impose sanctions on either party.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted and denied in part and sanctions are not imposed.