Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV17876, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17876    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiffs Britton Hoofkin and Victoria Hoofkin

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant General Motors, LLC

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiffs Britton Hoofkin and Victoria Hoofkin (Plaintiffs) filed this action on May 31, 2022, against Defendant General Motors, LLC. (Defendant). Plaintiffs allege violations of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act arising out of their purchase of a 2016 Cadillac ATC (Subject Vehicle).

            On August 8, 2022, Plaintiffs propounded to Defendant Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (RFPs).

            On September 7, 2022, Defendant provided Plaintiffs with responses to Plaintiffs’ RFPs.

            Plaintiffs found Defendant’s responses to RFP Nos. 1, 18, 29, 35, 36, 51, 53, 66, 76, 78, and 81-85 deficient and attempted to meet and confer.

            The parties were unable to resolve their dispute.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            ¿¿A propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to a demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that an answer or statement of compliance is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) Such a motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery sought and be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b), 2031.210, subd. (b).) ¿  

DISCUSSION

            The RFPs at issue relate to Defendant’s internal investigation and analysis of the defects that plagued the subject vehicle and other vehicles of the same year and make sold by Defendant. Plaintiff contends that good cause exists for the documents requested because they will show whether and the extent to which the subject vehicle failed to conform to the applicable warranties and whether Defendant knew or should have known of the alleged defects and its inability to repair them. Plaintiffs also contend that in its responses, Defendant has improperly limited the scope of discovery to include only the subject vehicle, relied on boilerplate objections, and failed to include an adequate statement of compliance or justifiable reason for noncompliance.

            In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good faith. However, the court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the meet and confer requirement. Defendant also argues that it has already produced documents relevant to the subject vehicle,  that documents pertaining to vehicles other than the subject vehicle are irrelevant, that it does not need to produce its policy or procedure information, that the requests impermissibly seek trade secret material, and that it complied with the California Electronic Discovery Act. The court will address the RFPs at issue.

            RFP No. 1

            Defendant responded to this request by stating it would comply and part and produce documents as to the subject vehicle as requested. The court finds this response satisfactory.

            RFP Nos. 18, 29, 51, 53

            Defendant responded to these requests by stating it would not produce any documents. The court orders Defendant to produce any internal analysis or investigation regarding defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Defendant is not required to do a search of emails. To the extent this request seeks trade secret information, Defendant may move for a protective order. Moreover, most of these requests cover electronically stored information. To the extent Defendant can locate electronically stored information (ESI), further response will be necessary. If Defendant cannot do so due to undue burden or expense, Defendant must amend its responses to identify the types or categories of sources of ESI that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d).) To the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, Defendant must produce a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1) [“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”].)

            RFP No. 35

            Defendant responded to this request by agreeing to produce a list of technical service bulletins and informational service bulletins issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Moreover, Plaintiff agreed to the production, if located, of copies of a reasonable number of technical service bulletins and informational service bulletins, if any, that relate to the defects of subject vehicle alleged in the complaint. Lastly, Defendant adds that subject vehicle currently has no current history of recalls and provides the Global Warranty history Report. The court finds this response satisfactory.

            RFP No. 36

            Defendant responded to this request by stating no documents will be produced. The court orders Defendant to produce responsive documents regarding the implementation of warranty extensions and recalls. To the extent this request seeks trade secret information, Defendant may move for a protective order. Moreover, this request covers all ESI. To the extent Defendant can locate ESI, further response will be necessary. If Defendant cannot do so due to undue burden or expense, Defendant must amend its responses to identify the types or categories of sources of ESI that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d).) To the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, Defendant must produce a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1) [“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”].)

            RFP No. 66

            Defendant responded to this request by stating no documents will be produced. The court orders Defendant to produce all documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for the period of date of purchase to present. To the extent this request seeks trade secret information, Defendant may move for a protective order. Moreover, this request covers all ESI. To the extent Defendant can locate ESI, further response will be necessary. If Defendant cannot do so due to undue burden or expense, Defendant must amend its responses to identify the types or categories of sources of ESI that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d).) To the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, Defendant must produce a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1) [“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”].)

            RFP No. 76

            Defendant responded to this request by stating that no documents will be produced. The court orders Defendant to produce the “Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual” published by Defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the period of date of purchase to present. Additionally, the court orders Defendant to produce all documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for the period of date of purchase to present. To the extent this request seeks trade secret information, Defendant may move for a protective order. Moreover, this request covers all ESI. To the extent Defendant can locate ESI, further response will be necessary. If Defendant cannot do so due to undue burden or expense, Defendant must amend its responses to identify the types or categories of sources of ESI that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d).) To the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, Defendant must produce a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1) [“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”].)

            RFP No. 78

            Defendant responded to this request by stating that no documents will be produced. The court orders Defendant to produce its recall policies and procedures. To the extent this request seeks trade secret information, Defendant may move for a protective order. To the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, Defendant must produce a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1) [“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”].)

            RFP No. 81

            Defendant responded to this request by stating that no documents will be produced. The court orders Defendant to produce documents evidencing communications with government agencies, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, regarding the defects alleged in the complaint as to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. To the extent this request seeks trade secret information, Defendant may move for a protective order. Moreover, this request covers all electronically stored information. To the extent Defendant can locate electronically stored information (ESI), further response will be necessary. If Defendant cannot do so due to undue burden or expense, Defendant must amend its responses to identify the types or categories of sources of ESI that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d).) To the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, Defendant must produce a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1) [“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”].)

            RFP No. 82

            Defendant responded to this request by stating that no documents will be produced. The court orders Defendant to provide documents evidencing communications with dealer, factory representative, and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle. To the extent this request seeks trade secret information, Defendant may move for a protective order. Moreover, this request covers all electronically stored information. To the extent Defendant can locate electronically stored information (ESI), further response will be necessary. If Defendant cannot do so due to undue burden or expense, Defendant must amend its responses to identify the types or categories of sources of ESI that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d).) To the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, Defendant must produce a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1) [“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”].)

            RFP No. 83

            Defendant responded to this request by stating the Early Warning Reports are equally available to all parties and can be obtained at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website. Defendant then refused to produce documents. However, the request seeks Early Warning Reports that Defendant submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The court orders Defendant to submit the responsive documents as to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle with the same defects alleged in the complaint.

            RFP No. 84

            Defendant responded to this request by refusing to produce documents. The court orders Defendant to produce all Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation reports it submitted as to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle with the same defects alleged in the complaint. To the extent this request seeks trade secret information, Defendant may move for a protective order. To the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, Defendant must produce a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1) [“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”].)

            RFP No. 85

            Defendant responded to this request by refusing to produce documents. The court orders Defendant to produce all National Highway Traffic Safety Administration complaints in its possession that relate to the defects alleged in the complaint as to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. To the extent this request seeks trade secret information, Defendant may move for a protective order. To the extent this request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, Defendant must produce a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1) [“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”].)

            Sanctions

            The court does not find that sanctions are warranted here, especially since Plaintiffs’ counsel has not taken the time to substantiate her request for $5,220.00 in attorney fees.

CONCLUSION

                Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses as to RFP Nos. 18, 29, 36, 51, 53, 66, 76, 78, 81-85. The court orders Defendant to serve on Plaintiffs complete, Code-compliant, further responses, without objections to these requests and to produce all documents in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to same within 30 days of the date of this order.  

            The court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses as to RFP Nos. 1 and 35.

            Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿May 5, 2023

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court