Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Ruvalvaba v. General Motors, LLC", Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling
The Motions to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) and Special Interrogatories (“SI”), filed by Plaintiff Mayra Ruvalvaba (“Plaintiffs) against Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”) are GRANTED IN PART.
Defendant is to provide further verified responses in accordance with this ruling within 20 days.
Requests for Production of Documents:
The court finds good cause has been shown for some of what is requested as documents pertaining to repair orders, warranty repair documents and recall documents related to the subject vehicle are clearly relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Further, documents regarding diagnostic/repair procedures followed is probative of whether Defendant followed the appropriate repair procedures pertaining to the subject vehicle and whether Defendant had knowledge that the repairs were inadequate. As Plaintiff notes, documents related to Defendant’s evaluation of its obligation to replace or refund under the Song Beverly Act would be relevant to Defendant’s good faith compliance with said Act.
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 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) Work orders, repair orders, and invoices (including accounting and warranty versions) for any maintenance, service and repair activity concerning the subject vehicle;
b) Warranty claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the subject vehicle;
c) 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;
d) 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;
e) 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;
f) Technical Service Bulletins and Recall Notices for vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle; and
g) Copies of any repair instruction, bulletin, or other diagnostic/repair procedure identified in any of the repair order/invoice records for the subject vehicle.
Special Interrogatories:
The motion is GRANTED as to SI No. 45 and DENIED as to SI Nos. 14, 40-44, and 53.
The court finds Defendant’s responses to SI Nos. 14 and 53 to be code compliant. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.230; 2030.220.) Thus, no further response is needed. The court finds Defendant’s objections to SI Nos. 40-44 on the grounds of overbreadth and vagueness are well-taken. These requests seek broad information not reasonably tailored to the needs of this case. Further, there is no indication that Plaintiff made any attempt to limit the scope of these interrogatories. Thus, no further response will be compelled.
The court finds Defendant’s response to SI No. 45 is non-responsive and its objections are not well-taken. This interrogatory seeks narrow information reasonably tailored to the needs of the case, i.e. the identity of the individuals responsible for Defendant’s decision to not repurchase or replace the subject vehicle. Defendant referred Plaintiff to its response to SI No. 42, which asserted various objections and then provided a response that failed to identify any individuals. A further response to this interrogatory must be provided.
Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.