Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV32062, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV32062 Hearing Date: October 31, 2023 Dept: 74
Gustavo Ramirez Velazquez v. General
Motors, LLC
Plaintiff Gustavo Ramirez
Velazquez’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set
One) from Defendant General Motors, LLC
The
court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from a dispute over a defective 2019 Chevrolet Silverado (Subject
Vehicle).
On
September 30, 2022, Plaintiff Gustavo Ramirez Velazquez (Plaintiff) filed a
complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant). The complaint
alleges various violations of the Civil Code.
On
January 27, 2023, Plaintiff propounded discovery on Defendant, including the
Special Interrogatories at issue.
On
March 16, 2023, Defendant served untimely responses.
On
May 2, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to compel further responses to Special
Interrogatory Nos. 24 and 25.
LEGAL STANDARD
¿¿A
propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to interrogatories
if the propounding party deems that an answer to a particular interrogatory is
evasive or incomplete, or that an objection to an interrogatory is without
merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300,
subd. (a).) Such a motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer
declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks further responses to
Special Interrogatory Nos. 24 and 25. These interrogatories ask Defendant to
identify all individuals, engineers, departments, or teams involved in the
drafting of two technical service bulletins. Defendant responded to both
interrogatories with numerous boilerplate objections. In addition, Defendant
stated no documents will be produced, even though neither of the
interrogatories request documents. The court finds Defendant’s initial
boilerplate objections too general and improper. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300,
subd. (a); Korea Data Systems v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th
1513, 1516.) In the opposition, though, Defendant expands on some of its
objections. Defendant contends that information about vehicles other than the
subject vehicle is irrelevant. But the Special Interrogatories at issue seek
the identities of individuals who were aware of the same defect that plagued
the subject vehicle. The individuals are relevant because they could provide
information about the following matters: the extent to which Defendant knew
about the defect in general, whether Defendant was on notice of the defect in
the subject vehicle, and Defendant’s ability or inability to repair the defect.
Defendant goes on to object that the special interrogatories at issue are
overbroad. However, the interrogatories only seek the identities of those who
authored two, specific technical service bulletins. Defendant also objects that
these interrogatories seek confidential trade secrets, but a protective order
is in place.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court
grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatory
Nos. 24 and 25. Defendant shall provide further, Code compliant responses by
November 11, 2023.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice
of this ruling.
/////////////////////////////////
Plaintiff Gustavo Ramirez
Velazquez’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of
Documents (Set One) from Defendant General Motors, LLC
The
court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from a dispute over a defective 2019 Chevrolet Silverado (Subject
Vehicle).
On
September 30, 2022, Plaintiff Gustavo Ramirez Velazquez (Plaintiff) filed a
complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant). The complaint
alleges various violations of the Civil Code.
On
January 27, 2023, Plaintiff propounded discovery on Defendant, including the
Requests for Production (RFPs) at issue.
On
March 16, 2023, Defendant served untimely responses.
On
May 2, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to compel further responses to the RFP
Nos. 16, 19, 20, and 21.
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
With this motion, Plaintiff seeks
further responses to RFP Nos. 16, 19, 20, and 21. As a preliminary matter, the
court finds that the parties have sufficiently met and conferred. Plaintiff
contends that there is good cause for the documents sought because the
information is relevant to Plaintiff’s following claims: (1) Defendant was on
notice of the defect at issue, (2) Defendant knew the defect at issue plagued
the subject vehicle, (3) Defendant knew it could not repair the subject
vehicle, (4) Defendant violated the Song-Beverly Act by refusing to repurchase
the subject vehicle, and (5) Defendant breached the warranty of
merchantability.
Defendant,
for its part, initially responded to all the RFPs at issue with the same
boilerplate objections. The court finds such objections too general and
improper. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a); Korea Data Systems v.
Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.) In the opposition, Defendant
expands on some of its objections. Accordingly, the court will address the
merit of these objections as applied to each RFP at issue.
RFP
No. 16
This RFP seeks all documents
concerning any internal analysis or investigation made by Defendant concerning
the relevant defect in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the
subject vehicle. Defendant contends that information about
vehicles other than the subject vehicle is irrelevant. But the information this
RFP requests could illuminate the extent to which Defendant was on notice of
the defect that plagued the subject vehicle. Defendant also argues that the
request is overbroad. But Plaintiff has limited its scope to a specific defect
and vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle.
Moreover, Defendant points out it has already produced documents responsive to
other RFPs. That Defendant has sufficiently responded to other RFPs does not
excuse it from providing a Code compliant response to this RFP. Defendant also objects that this RFP seeks
confidential trade secrets, but the court signed the parties’ stipulated
protective order on May 5. Thus, a further response is necessary.
Defendant shall produce any internal analysis or investigation regarding
defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles for the same year, make,
and model of the subject vehicle. This
includes Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins.
RFP
No. 19
This RFP seeks all documents
concerning customer complaints, reported failures, and warranty claims related
to the relevant defect in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the
subject vehicle. Defendant has agreed to produce documents evidencing customer
complaints about the relevant defect in vehicles of the same year, make, and
model as the subject vehicle. Further response is not necessary.
RFP
No. 20
RFP
No. 21
This RFP seeks all documents related
to any fixes for the relevant defect in vehicle of the same year, make, and
model as the subject vehicle. Defendant contends that information about
vehicles other than the subject vehicle is irrelevant. But the information this
RFP requests could illuminate the extent to which Defendant was on notice of
the defect that plagued the subject vehicle. Defendant also argues that the
request is overbroad. But Plaintiff has limited its scope to a specific defect
and vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle.
Moreover, Defendant points out it has already produced documents responsive to
other RFPs. That Defendant has sufficiently responded to other RFPs does not
excuse it from providing a code-compliant response to this RFP. Defendant also
objects that this RFP seeks confidential trade secrets, but a protective order
is in place. Thus, further response is
necessary.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court grants
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the Requests for Production
in part. Defendant shall provide further, Code compliant responses to RFP No.
16, 20, and 21 by November 11, 2023.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice
of this ruling.
////////////////////////////////
Gustavo Ramirez Velazquez v. General
Motors, LLC
Plaintiff Gustavo Ramirez
Velazquez’s Motion for Order Establishing Admissions
The
court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from a dispute over a defective 2019 Chevrolet Silverado (Subject
Vehicle).
On
September 30, 2022, Plaintiff Gustavo Ramirez Velazquez (Plaintiff) filed a
complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant). The complaint
alleges various violations of the Civil Code.
On
January 27, 2023, Plaintiff propounded discovery on Defendant, including the
Requests for Admissions (RFAs) at issue.
On
March 16, 2023, Defendant served untimely responses.
On
May 2, 2023, Defendant filed this motion for an order deeming the RFAs at issue
admitted.
LEGAL STANDARD
If
a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely
response, the requesting party may move for an order that the truth of any
matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary
sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) Further, the
Court¿shall¿make this order, “unless it finds that the party to whom the
requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing¿on the
motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in
substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) ¿
While tardy responses may defeat the motion, they will not
avoid monetary sanctions. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c) [“It is mandatory
that the court impose a monetary sanction [Citation] on the party or attorney,
or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission
necessitated this motion.”].)
DISCUSSION
This motion is moot because
Defendant has provided responses in substantial compliance with Code of Civil
Procedure section 2033.220. In his opposition, Plaintiff contends Defendant’s
responses to the following RFAs are not substantially code compliant: 1, 8-17,
19, 20, 23, 24. First, Plaintiff claims Defendant’s objections to each RFA are
improper because they have been waived. However, the court has granted
Defendant’s motion for relief from waiver to the RFAs. Second, assuming
Defendant’s objections were waived, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s responses must
include an admission, a denial, or a statement claiming inability to admit or
deny after a reasonable inquiry. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b.).) But
Defendant has admitted or denied every RFA.
Given
the untimeliness of those responses, though, sanctions are mandatory under Code
of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subd. (c): “It is mandatory that the court
impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to
serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”
Plaintiff’s counsel’s proposed hourly rate is reasonable, and he has
substantiated his request with an hourly breakdown of work performed, but the
court reduces the number of hours to 6 hours. Accordingly, the court will award
Plaintiff’s counsel attorney fees in the sum of $2,280 ($380/hr x 6 hrs).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court finds
this motion moot. The court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.
Defendant’s counsel shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel attorney fees in the sum of $2,280
by November 31, 2023.
////////////////////////////////////////
Gustavo Ramirez Velazquez v. General
Motors, LLC
Defendant’s Motion for Relief from
Waiver of Discovery Objections
The
court considered the moving papers. Although Plaintiff’s opposition was
untimely, the court will exercise its discretion and review it.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from a dispute
over a defective 2019 Chevrolet Silverado (Subject Vehicle).
On
September 30, 2022, Plaintiff Gustavo Ramirez Velazquez (Plaintiff) filed a
complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant). The complaint
alleges various violations of the Civil Code.
On
January 27, 2023, Plaintiff propounded discovery on Defendant.
That
month, Defendant learned of a duplicate case (22STCV34367) also involving the
subject vehicle. On March 2, 2023, the duplicate case was dismissed.
Defendant
provided untimely discovery responses on March 16, 2023.
On
June 20, 2023, Defendant filed this motion for relief from waiver of discovery
objections.
LEGAL STANDARD
The court, on motion, may relieve a
party from its waiver of objections to requests for production,
interrogatories, and requests for admission if both of the following conditions
are satisfied: (1) the party has subsequently served substantially Code compliant
responses and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result
of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.300,
subd. (a), 2030.290, subd. (a), 2033.280, subd. (a).)
DISCUSSION
The court finds that Defendant’s
failure to serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests resulted
from an excusable mistake. Given the duplicate cases involving the subject
vehicle, and Defendant’s communications with Plaintiff’s counsel, it was
unclear whether this case would proceed or be dismissed. Consequently,
Defendant was understandably unsure whether discovery responses were
appropriate before the initial deadline. Once Defendant learned the other case
had been dismissed and this action was proceeding, it served Plaintiff with
responses as soon as possible.
However,
relief from waiver also requires the court to determine that the subsequently
served responses are substantially Code compliant. In his opposition, Plaintiff
first argues that not all of Defendant’s responses to the Requests for Production
of Documents (RFPs) are Code compliant. Plaintiff points to Defendant’s
responses to RFP Nos. 16, 19, 20, and 21, all of which consist in boilerplate
objections followed by a refusal to produce responsive documents. Upon review
of the RFP responses, the court notes that Defendant has done the same for RFP
Nos. 7, 8, 12-15, 17, 25, 26, 29, 30, 34-47, 49-51, and 54-60. One repeated, boilerplate
objection states that the requested documents are protected by the work-product
doctrine. But Defendant did not provide any supporting facts for other parties
to evaluate the merits of that objection (including a privilege log if
necessary), as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240,
subdivision (c)(1). Thus, Defendant’s responses to the RFPs are not
substantially Code compliant.
In
addition, Plaintiff makes the case that not all of Defendant’s responses to the
Special Interrogatories are Code compliant. Plaintiff directs the court’s
attention to Defendant’s responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 24 and 25 as
examples of Defendant’s non-compliance. Defendant responded to both
interrogatories with the same boilerplate objections followed by the statement:
“No documents will be produced.” This response is not straightforward, as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (a), because
neither of the interrogatories request documents. In addition, Defendant has
repeated a circuitous response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, and 6. The
court also notes that Defendant applied the same boilerplate objections to
Special Interrogatory Nos. 17, 20, 21, 22. Thus, Defendant’s responses to the
Special Interrogatories are not substantially Code compliant.
Moreover,
Plaintiff contends Defendant’s responses to the Requests for Admission (RFAs)
are not substantially Code compliant. Plaintiff directs the court’s attention
to RFA Nos. 8 and 24, to which Defendant objects in part “on the grounds it
seeks information that may not be in [Defendant’s] possession, custody, and
control.” Nevertheless, Defendant has provided RFA responses that are
substantially Code complaint.
Given
the foregoing, the court finds that Defendant has waived its objections to the
RFPs and Special Interrogatories because the responses are not substantially Code
compliant. However, the court finds Defendant’s responses to the RFAs in
substantial compliance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Despite Defendant’s waiver of objections, though, the court does not
find that it has waived attorney-client privilege. (People v. Kor (1954)
129 Cal.App.2d 436, 447.)
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court grants
Defendant’s motion for relief from waiver of objections to the Requests for Admission.
The court denies Defendant’s motion for relief from waiver of objections to the
Requests for Production of Documents and Special Interrogatories. Defendant has
not waived attorney-client privilege.
Plaintiff
is ordered to give notice of this ruling.