Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV40192, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV40192 Hearing Date: January 12, 2024 Dept: 74
Garrett William
Holter v. General Motors, LLC
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set
One)
The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and
reply.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from a defective
2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500.
On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff
Garrett William Holter (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant General
Motors, LLC (Defendant). The complaint alleges violation of Civil Code section
1793.2, subdivision (d); violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision
(b); violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); breach of
express written warranty; and breach of implied warranty of merchantability.
On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff
propounded requests for production of documents (RFPs) on Defendant.
On May 16, 2023, Defendant served
Plaintiff with responses. Plaintiff was dissatisfied.
The parties met and conferred to no
avail.
On August 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed
this motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 16-21.
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
Plaintiff
seeks further response to RFP Nos. 16-21. As a preliminary matter, the court
finds Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for this motion and the parties
have sufficiently met and conferred. The court also notes that Defendant’s initial boilerplate
objections are too general and improper. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd.
(a); Korea Data Systems v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513,
1516.) Accordingly, the court will only address the objections that Defendant
expands upon in its opposition and separate statement.
RFP No. 16
This RFP seeks production of documents concerning Defendant’s internal
analysis and investigation of the braking system defect in vehicles of the same
year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. First,
Defendant objects that this request is irrelevant because it covers vehicles
other than the subject vehicle. The court disagrees, as responsive documents
about vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle could
show the extent to which Defendant was aware of the defects alleged in Plaintiff’s
complaint yet failed to repurchase the subject vehicle. Second, Defendant
objects that this request places the onus on Defendant to determine the scope
of the alleged defect. But Plaintiff has sufficiently defined the braking
system defect in its RFPs. Third, Defendant claims that this request is
overbroad. The court disagrees because Plaintiff has sufficiently defined the
braking system defect and limited this request to vehicles of the same year,
make, and model as the subject vehicle. Fourth, Defendant objects that this
request demands production of confidential, proprietary, and commercially
sensitive trade secrets. However, Defendant has not demonstrated how this
objection applies to this request. Moreover, the parties have already
stipulated to a protective order. Thus, further response is necessary.
RFP No. 17
This RFP seeks production of documents concerning communications
Defendant has had regarding the braking system defect in vehicles of the same
year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. First, Defendant objects that
this request is irrelevant because it covers vehicles other than the subject
vehicle. The court disagrees, as responsive documents about vehicles of the
same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle could show the extent to which Defendant was aware of the defects
alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint yet failed to repurchase the subject vehicle.
Second, Defendant objects that this request places the onus on Defendant to
determine the scope of the alleged defect. But Plaintiff has sufficiently
defined the braking system defect in its RFPs. Third, Defendant claims that
this request is overbroad. The court disagrees because Plaintiff has
sufficiently defined the braking system defect and limited this request to
vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Fourth,
Defendant objects that this request demands production of confidential,
proprietary, and commercially sensitive trade secrets. However, Defendant has
not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. Moreover, the
parties have already stipulated to a protective order. Thus, further response
is necessary.
RFP No. 18
This RFP seeks documents concerning any of Defendant’s decisions to issue
any notices, letters, campaigns warranty extensions, technical service
bulletins, and recalls concerning the braking system defect in vehicles of the
same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. First, Defendant objects
that this request is overbroad. The court disagrees because it is limited to
documents pertaining to the braking system defect in vehicles of the same year,
make, and model as the subject vehicle. Second, Defendant objects that this
request is irrelevant. Again, the court disagrees as responsive documents could
show the extent to which Defendant was aware of the defects alleged in
Plaintiff’s complaint yet failed to repurchase the subject vehicle. Third,
Defendant objects that this request demands production of confidential,
proprietary, and commercially sensitive trade secrets. However, Defendant has
not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. Moreover, the
parties have already stipulated to a protective order. Thus, further response
is necessary. Defendant need only produce the notices, letters, campaigns
warranty extensions, technical service bulletins, and recalls themselves.
RFP No. 19
This RFP seeks documents concerning customer complaints, claims, reported
failures, and warranty claims related to the braking system defect. First,
Defendant objects that this request is irrelevant because it covers vehicles
other than the subject vehicle. The court agrees in part, as the request is not
limited to the braking system defect in vehicles of the same year, make, and
model as the subject vehicle. Second, Defendant objects that this request
places the onus on Defendant to determine the scope of the alleged defect. But
Plaintiff has sufficiently defined the braking system defect in its RFPs.
Third, Defendant claims that this request is overbroad. The court agrees in
part because Plaintiff has not limited the request to vehicles of the same
year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Fourth, Defendant objects that
this request demands production of confidential, proprietary, and commercially
sensitive trade secrets. However, Defendant has not demonstrated how this
objection applies to this request. Moreover, the parties have already stipulated
to a protective order. Thus, further response is necessary. Defendant shall
produce responsive documents that concern the braking system defect in vehicles
of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle.
RFP No. 20
This RFP seeks production of documents concerning failure rates of
vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle due to the
braking system defect. First, Defendant objects that this request is irrelevant
because it covers vehicles other than the subject vehicle. The court disagrees,
as responsive documents about vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the
subject vehicle could show the extent to which Defendant was aware of the
defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint yet failed to repurchase the subject
vehicle. Second, Defendant objects that this request places the onus on
Defendant to determine the scope of the alleged defect. But Plaintiff has
sufficiently defined the braking system defect in its RFPs. Third, Defendant
claims that this request is overbroad. The court disagrees because Plaintiff
has sufficiently defined the braking system defect and limited this request to
vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Fourth,
Defendant objects that this request demands production of confidential,
proprietary, and commercially sensitive trade secrets. However, Defendant has
not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. Moreover, the
parties have already stipulated to a protective order. Thus, further response
is necessary.
RFP No. 21
This RFP seeks production of documents concerning any fixes for the
braking system defect in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the
subject vehicle. First, Defendant objects that this request is irrelevant
because it covers vehicles other than the subject vehicle. The court disagrees,
as responsive documents about vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the
subject vehicle could show the extent to which Defendant was aware of the
defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint yet failed to repurchase the subject
vehicle. Second, Defendant objects that this request places the onus on
Defendant to determine the scope of the alleged defect. But Plaintiff has
sufficiently defined the braking system defect in its RFPs. Third, Defendant
claims that this request is overbroad. The court disagrees because Plaintiff
has sufficiently defined the braking system defect and limited this request to
vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Fourth,
Defendant objects that this request demands production of confidential,
proprietary, and commercially sensitive trade secrets. However, Defendant has
not demonstrated how this objection applies to this request. Moreover, the
parties have already stipulated to a protective order. Thus, further response
is necessary.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court grants
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery for RFP Nos. 16-21. Defendant
shall provide further, Code-compliant responses and produce responsive
documents by January 22, 2024.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice
of this ruling.