Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case 22STCV10150 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV10150, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10150 Hearing Date: February 2, 2023 Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,

Date: 2/2/23 (8:30 AM)

Case: Juan Herrejon Ruiz et al. v. Harbor Chevrolet Corp., et al. (22STCV10150)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Juan Herrejon Ruiz and Emily Castellanos’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs Juan Herrejon Ruiz and Emily Castellanos move to compel further responses from defendant General Motors LLC to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 16-43, 45, and 46.

Defendant argues that plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith as they did not try to resolve any disputes. (Opp. at 4:15-17.) On November 8, 2022, after defendant served plaintiff with responses, plaintiff served defendant with a meet and confer letter. (Kreymer Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. C.) Plaintiff set forth reasoning and analysis regarding why defendant’s objections were without merit and the good cause supporting production of the documents requested in the subject discovery. On November 14, 2022, defendant responded to plaintiff’s meet and confer letter, wherein defendant purportedly provided “point by point as to its discovery responses and objections.” (Major Decl. ¶ 5.) Neither plaintiff nor defendant have provided a copy of defendant’s letter. On December 5, 2022, plaintiff responded to defendant’s letter, stating why the requested documents are relevant. (Kreymer Decl. ¶ 10 & Ex. D.) On December 12, 2022, defendant responded by reiterating its objections. (Major Decl. ¶ 6.) No subsequent responses resulted from plaintiff’s second letter. (Kreymer Decl. ¶ 11.)

Based on defendant’s response to plaintiff’s meet and confer letter and refusal to provide further responses, the Court finds that plaintiff’s meet and confer effort was sufficient. Indeed, “[a] single letter, followed by a response which refuses concessions, might in some instances be an adequate attempt at informal resolution, especially when a legitimate discovery objective is demonstrated.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432.) Defendant’s maintaining of its objections demonstrated that any further effort from plaintiff to persuade defendant that requests concerning non-parties or vehicles other than the subject vehicle are relevant would have been futile.

With respect to Nos. 17, 33-40, 42, 43, 45, and 46, further responses are required. Based on plaintiff’s allegations regarding defects in the subject vehicle (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 30), plaintiffs are entitled to discovery that is probative of defendant’s knowledge of defects in 2021 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 vehicles, including vehicles other than the subject vehicle, as well as defendant’s handling of complaints. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143-44, 154-55 [evidence pertaining to defects in same model transmission in vehicles other than subject vehicle is relevant to Song-Beverly claim]; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973-74, 993 [evidence pertaining to similar problem in other vehicles other than subject vehicle are highly relevant].)

Any willfulness in violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act would entitle plaintiff to a civil penalty not exceeding two times the amount of actual damages. (Compl. ¶ 26 [allegation that defendant’s failure to comply with Song-Beverly was willful]; Civ. Code § 1794(c); CACI 3244.) A defendant is willful under Civil Code § 1794(c) when the defendant “knew of its legal obligations and intentionally declined to follow them.” (CACI 3244.) Thus, defendant’s knowledge gained from other instances of the defects about which plaintiff complains may evidence defendant’s knowledge that the vehicle was not repairable and that defendant therefore had an obligation to replace or repurchase the vehicle under Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2).

With respect to policies and procedures, sought in Request Nos. 16, 19-32, 41, and 42 plaintiffs are entitled to inquire whether warranty, repair, and diagnostic procedures are designed to encourage refusals of repair or repurchase requests. (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101, 1104-05 [evidence of willfulness in refusing to repair or repurchase the evidence existed because “there was evidence that Isuzu adopted internal policies that erected hidden obstacles to the ability of an unwary consumer to obtain redress under the Act”].)

With respect to the operative Franchise Agreement sought in Request No. 18 and labor operation codes provided by defendant to its defendants sought in Request No. 41, these documents are probative of the obligations that defendant imposes on its dealerships regarding vehicle repairs and defendant’s knowledge of its responsibilities under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Defendant also asserts that the requested documents are protected trade secret. Even if the document requests seek trade secrets, such concerns are sufficiently addressed by a protective order, to which plaintiff maintains it agreed on January 25, 2023. (Reply at 1:14-15.)

For the foregoing reasons the motion is GRANTED. Within fifteen (15) days hereof, defendant General Motors LLC shall serve further responses, without objection, to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 16-43, 45, and 46.

For opposing this motion without substantial justification, monetary sanctions are imposed against defendant General Motors LLC and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reasonable requested amount of $2,420. Such monetary sanctions shall be paid to counsel for plaintiffs within thirty (30) days hereof.