Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV24626, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV24626    Hearing Date: March 25, 2025    Dept: 74

Romero et al. v. General Motors, LLC

Plaintiffs Julio Romero and Adriana Ticas’s Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents

BACKGROUND 

This motions arises from a Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act action.

Plaintiffs Julio Romero and Adriana Ticas (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against General Motors, LLC (Defendant). 

On November 15, 2024, Plaintiffs served Defendant with a Request for Production of Documents.  Defendant served responses on December 16, 2024, which they verified on January 9, 2025. 

On February 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Production.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant served discovery responses on December 16, 2025.  The Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently met and conferred regarding the alleged deficiencies of the response.  (Rabieian Decl., ¶ 6-11.)               

            The Court finds that Defendants shall produce:

·         Request for Production No. 1: Grant – Defendant must produce all repair orders related to the Subject Vehicle.

·         Request for Production No. 3: Grant – Defendant must produce all warranty repair documents related to the Subject Vehicle.

·         Request for Production No. 9: Grant – Defendant must provide plaintiff with all documents related to service bulletins and/or technical service bulletins. 

·         Request for Production No. 17: Grant – Defendant must supply all manuals, publications, directives and direct dealer notifications related to the Subject Vehicle’s warranty repairs. 

·         Request for Production No. 31:  Grant in part – Defendants must produce all documents relating to the Customer Call Center’s policies or procedures relating to Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, such as customer repurchase requests.   

·         Request for Production No. 37-60: Grant in full.  Defendants must produce all documents related to California owners of the same year, make and model of plaintiffs’ vehicle who also reported the same defects identified in the repair orders.  

·         Request for Production No. 68: Deny.

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 3, 9, 17, 37-60.  The Court grants in part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production No. 31.  The Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production No. 68.

            Plaintiff to give notice.