Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV04811, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV04811 Hearing Date: April 23, 2025 Dept: 74
Vazquez et
al. v. General Motors LLC
Plaintiffs Jose Vazquez and Natalia
Vazquez’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set
One.
BACKGROUND
The
motion arises from a Song-Beverly Act action.
Plaintiffs
Jose Vazquez and Natalia Vazquez (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against General
Motors LLC (Defendant) under the Song Beverly Act.
On
December 12, 2024, Plaintiffs propounded Requests for Production. Defendant provided responses on January 13,
2025 and verifications on January 28, 2025.
Plaintiff
moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set One.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff propounded discovery on December 12,
2024. Defendant provided responses on
January 13, 2025 and later provided the verifications. Plaintiff moves for further responses on the
grounds that Defendant’s objections are without merit and that Defendant has
failed to produce the entirety of its non-confidential and confidential
document production. The Court finds
that Plaintiff engaged in sufficient Meet and Confer efforts. (Grigoryan Decl., ¶¶ 19-23.)
The
Court finds:
·
RfP
No. 6: Grant –
Defendant shall provide its Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual.
·
RfP
No. 7: Grant –
Defendant shall provide “LEMON LAW DOCUMENTS” as defined by the Request for
Production.
·
RfP
No. 9: Grant –
Defendant shall provide the Workshop Manual for similar vehicles. The Court finds that the demand would only
take reasonable inquiry; thus, the objection that the documents being equally
available is invalid.
·
RfP
No. 12: Deny –
Request is overbroad as it is not targeted at the defects identified in the
Plaintiff’s vehicle.
·
RfP
No. 13: Deny –
Request is overbroad as it is not targeted at the defects identified in the
Plaintiff’s vehicle.
·
RfP
No. 14: Deny –
Request is overbroad as it is not targeted at the defects identified in the
Plaintiff’s vehicle.
·
RfP
No. 15: Deny –
Request is overbroad as it is not targeted at the defects identified in the
Plaintiff’s vehicle.
·
RfP
No. 16: Deny –
Request is overbroad as it is not targeted at the defects identified in the
Plaintiff’s vehicle.
·
RfP
No. 17: Grant in
part – Defendant shall provide non-privileged, non-confidential communications
regarding the DEFECTS in SIMILAR VEHICLES, but Defendant is not required to
provide e-mails.
·
RfP
No. 18: Grant in
part – Defendant shall provide documents concerning communications about
customer concerns surrounding the DEFECTS in SIMILAR VEHICLES, but Defendant is
not required to provide e-mails.
·
RfP
No. 20: Grant in part – Defendant shall provide
documents concerning modifications to the cooling system in response to DEFECTS
in SIMILAR VEHICLES, but Defendant is not required to provide e-mails.
·
RfP
No. 21: Grant in
part – Defendant shall provide documents concerning modifications to the brake
system in response to DEFECTS in SIMILAR VEHICLES, but Defendant is not
required to provide e-mails.
·
RfP
No. 22: Grant in
part – Defendant shall provide documents concerning customer complaints,
claims, reported failures and warranted claims related to the DEFECTS limited
to SUBJECT VEHICLES. Defendant is not
required to provide e-mails.
·
RfP
No. 23: Grant in
part – Defendant shall provide documents relating to the failure rates of
component parts and/or systems of SIMILAR VEHICLES surrounding the
DEFECTS. Defendant is not required to
provide e-mails.
·
RfP
No. 24: Grant in
part- Defendant shall provide documents relating to any fixes for the DEFECTS
in SIMILAR VEHICLES. Defendant is not
required to provide e-mails.
·
RfP
No. 29: Grant –
Defendant shall provide any documents relating to warranty extensions issued
for DEFECTS regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
·
RfP
No. 30: Deny.
·
RfP
No. 32: Grant –
Defendant shall provide all documents created by technical advisors which
related to the DEFECTS in SIMILAR VEHICLES.
·
RfP
No. 38: Grant –
Defendant shall provide all documents since 2018 related to Defendants’
evaluation of customer repurchases pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.
·
RfP
No. 39: Grant –
Defendant shall provide all documents related to Defendant’s rules, policies,
or procedures since 2018 regarding repurchase or replacement under the
Song-Beverly Act.
·
RfP
No. 40: Deny –
Request for Production goes beyond the scope of Song-Bevely policies, or
policies targeted at SIMILAR VEHICLES and DEFECTS.
·
RfP
No. 41: Grant –
Defendant shall provide all documents regarding tools used by customer service agents
in repurchase and replacement of SIMILAR VEHICLES pursuant to the Song-Beverly
Act.
·
RfP
No. 42: Grant –
Defendant shall produce all documents regarding policies, procedures, and/or
instructions regarding evaluating a consumer repurchase or replacement request
pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.
·
RfP
No. 43: Grant –
Defendant shall produce all documents from 2018 to the present regarding
policies followed after deciding to repurchase or replace SIMILAR VEHICLES
under the Song-Bevely Act.
·
RfP
No. 44: Grant in
Part – Defendant shall produce all documents from 2018 to the present regarding
SIMILAR VEHICLES which were repurchased or replaced under the Song-Beverly
Act. Defendant is not required to
provide e-mails.
·
RfP
No. 45: Grant –
Defendant shall produce Vehicle Warranty History Reports for the repurchase of
SIMILAR VEHICLES.
·
RfP
No. 46: Deny –
Request is not tailored to the call center’s handling of the Plaintiff’s
Vehicle.
·
RfP
No. 47: Deny –
Request is not tailored to the call center’s handling of the Plaintiff’s
Vehicle.
·
RfP
No. 48: Deny –
Request is not tailored to the call center’s handling of the Plaintiff’s
Vehicle.
·
RfP
No. 49: Grant.
·
RfP
No. 50: Grant.
·
RfP
No. 51: Grant.
·
RfP
No. 52: Grant.
·
RfP
No. 54: Deny.
·
RfP
No. 55: Grant –
Defendant shall provide all training manuals or documents relating to consumer
repurchase requests pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.
·
RfP
No. 56: Grant.
·
RfP
No. 57: Grant in
part – Defendant shall produce TREAT reports submitted regarding SIMILAR
VEHICLES and the identified DEFECTS.
·
RfP
No. 58: Deny.
·
RfP
No. 59: Grant in
part – Defendant shall be required to produce documents relating to customer
relation data records relating to repairs preformed on SIMILAR VEHICLES for the
DEFECTS. Defendant is not required to
produce emails.
·
RfP
No. 66: Grant –
Defendant shall produce all documents regarding policies for repair facilities that
receive customer complaints for defective vehicles.
·
RfP
No. 69: Grant –
Defendant shall produce all documents available to persons who determine
whether a vehicle qualifies for repurchase under the Song-Beverly Act.
CONCLUSION
The
Court grants in part, and denies in part, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further
Discovery. Defendant to provide Code compliant
verified supplemental responses within 30 days.
Plaintiff
to give notice.