Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Chang v. General Motors LLC, Date: 2023-06-12 Tentative Ruling

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) filed by Plaintiff Suena Chang (“Plaintiff) against Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”) is GRANTED IN PART

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses a number of requests in Request for Production (Set One). 

The court finds that meet and confer efforts were sufficient and that good cause exists for some of the documents requested by Plaintiff. Documents related to the policies and procedures in handling customer requests for repurchase or replacement under the Song Beverly Act are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant willfully failed to comply. Further, documents sought relating to recall and TSB documents, and customer complaints and warranty repairs for vehicles in California of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle are undoubtedly relevant to the claims presented.  In addition, evidence of Defendant’s knowledge of the claimed defect in other vehicles may prove relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.  (See Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973-974, 978-979; see also, Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154.)

However, the some of the RFPs at issue are overbroad.  The Court will thus grant in part, to compel Defendant to respond and produce documents for these RFPs only as to:

a)   Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual or similar policies or claim-handling procedures published by Defendant from the date the subject vehicle was purchased to the date the lawsuit was filed;

b)   Defendant's written statements of policy and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase or replacement pursuant to "Lemon Law" claims, including ones brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date the subject vehicle was purchased to the date the lawsuit was filed;

c)    A list or compilation of customer complaints in Defendant's electronically stored information database that are substantially similar to the alleged defects claimed by Plaintiff in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. A substantially similar customer complaint would be the same nature of reported symptom, malfunction, dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem as the description listed in any work order or repair order for the subject vehicle, other than routine or scheduled maintenance items. The list provided by Defendant may be in a chart or spreadsheet format and shall include the VIN, date of repair visit, dealership or other reporting location, and text of the other customers' reported complaint, but shall not include the other customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or other personal identifying information;

d)   Technical Service Bulletins and Recall Notices for vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle; and

e)   Copies of any repair instruction, bulletin, or other diagnostic/repair procedure identified in any of the repair order/invoice records for the subject vehicle.

No good cause exists to compel further production of documents. Defendant is to provide further verified responses in accordance with this ruling within 20 days.  Defendant will need to comply with C.C.P. § 2031.280(a) for any documents previously produced and for any future production.

As to the remainder of Defendant’s objections, Defendant does not provide any reasoned argument for its objection based on vagueness and ambiguity, nor has Defendant established any evidence to justify an objection based on burden or privilege, and therefore has failed to meet its burden.  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.)  In terms of Defendant’s trade secret information objection, it is noted that the parties filed a Stipulated Protective Order while this motion was pending, which was signed by the parties prior to the filing of this motion.  Thus, Defendant’s concerns regarding improper dissemination of its confidential and trade secret material are moot.

Plaintiff to give notice.