Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Diaz et al vs. General Motors, LLC", Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

The Motion to Compel Further Responses and Documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, etc., as filed on 3/24/23 by Plaintiffs Alejandra Isabel Diaz and Marina Diaz Renteria (“Plaintiffs”), is DENIED for Request Nos. 16, 20 and 42, GRANTED for No. 32, and GRANTED IN PART for Nos. 19 and 21.

As reflected in recent submissions, the parties have now agreed to a proposed protective order (“PO”), which the Court has approved (ROA 65).  With that PO in place, Defendant General Motors, LLC (“GM”) stated that it would produce a substantial portion of what remains at issue, as identified in the Joint Statement filed on 8/8/23, prior to the hearing.  In that context, the Court now rules as follows.

For Requests 16, 20 and 42, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the breadth of the requests is appropriate in context here, in light of the scope of the “defects” at issue, the privacy interests asserted by GM, and the extent to which GM has already agreed to produce specific categories of documents pertinent thereto.  The Motion as to those requests, to the extent that they go beyond what GM has now agreed to produce, is thus denied.

However, Plaintiffs are entitled to a supplemental response for No. 32, which seeks documents upon which GM relies in contending (if it is so contending) that it was “under no obligation to promptly replace or repurchase” Plaintiffs’ vehicle.  GM cannot rely upon documents to support a contention while refusing to produce them. The Motion as to that request is thus granted.

For No. 19, GM is to provide a list of customer complaints in California for the same year, make, and model vehicle (listing the VIN, date of repair visit, dealership or reporting location, and the text of the complaint, but not also the individual customer’s identifying information), as it has now agreed to do.  GM has also now agreed to provide lists of California repurchases of and other lawsuits involving 2018 Chevrolet Silverado vehicles. Beyond these categories, the Motion as to No. 19 is denied, in light of the scope of the “defects” at issue, the privacy interests asserted by GM, and the extent to which GM has already agreed to produce specific categories of documents pertinent thereto. 

For No. 21, GM is to provide any TSBs or recall notices for the same year, make, and model vehicle used in California, and any repair instruction, bulletin, or other diagnostic/repair procedure identified in any repair order/invoice records for Plaintiffs’ vehicle.  Beyond these categories, the Motion as to No. 21 is denied, in light of the scope of the “defects” at issue, the privacy interests asserted by GM, and the extent to which GM has already agreed to produce specific categories of documents pertinent thereto. 

Plaintiffs’ Evidentiary Objections (ROA 57) are SUSTAINED for Obj. Nos. 7 and 8 [relevance], and as to the Lu Decl. [foundation], but otherwise OVERRULED.

GM is to provide supplemental verified responses and its corresponding supplemental production within 20 days after service of notice of this ruling.

Counsel for Plaintiff is to give notice.