Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV27085, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV27085 Hearing Date: May 4, 2023 Dept: 72
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Date: 5/4/23 (8:30 AM)
Case: Ugenio L. Ochoa v. General
Motors LLC (22STCV27085)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Ugenio L. Ochoa’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED IN PART
Plaintiff Ugenio L. Ochoa moves to compel further responses
from defendant General Motors LLC to the following Requests for Production, Set
One, Nos. 13-16, 34, and 35, which are set forth below:
No. 13
All DOCUMENTS IDENTIFYTNG [sic] repurchases made by YOU of
the 2014 GMC Sierra vehicles and allegedly containing any of the conditions,
defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE
to YOU for repair. (For purposes of this request, the term “IDENTIFYING” seeks
documents establishing the name of the complaining PERSON, the complaints made
by such PERSON(S), the names of any lawyers involved as well as case names,
court numbers, and locations and whether such repurchase was voluntary or
pursuant to a court order.)
No. 14
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, or referring to
complaints by owners of the 2014 GMC Sierra, vehicle regarding any of the
conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the
SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.
No. 15
All surveys, reports, summaries, or other DOCUMENTS in which
owners of the 2014 GMC Sierra vehicle have reported to YOU problems with any of
the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the
SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair. (For
example, YOU survey YOUR new car buyers. If any of the survey responses refer
to the above-listed conditions, defects, or nonconformities, Plaintiffs request
these DOCUMENTS be produced.)
No. 16
All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, relate, or refer to
the numbers of owners of the 2014 GMC Sierra vehicle who have complained of any
of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented
the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.
No. 34
All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to technical
service bulletins which have been issued for vehicles of the same year, make,
and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
No. 35
All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to recalls
which have been issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the
SUBJECT VEHICLE.
As a preliminary matter, plaintiff adequately met and
conferred with respect to Nos. 13-16 before filing this motion. On February 8,
2023, plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to defendant, wherein plaintiff
discussed the relevance of similar vehicle complaints and agreed to search
terms concerning transmission, electrical, and engine issues. (Yashar Decl. ¶ 7
& Ex. 3 at 13-15.) Defendant did not respond to the letter, which
foreclosed any possibility of compromise regarding the requests. (Yashar Decl.
¶ 8.)
With respect to Nos. 34 and 35, however, plaintiff did not
discuss these requests in the meet and confer letter. Accordingly, plaintiff
did not satisfy the meet and confer requirement under CCP §§ 2016.040 and
2031.310(b)(2). The motion as to Nos. 34 and 35 is DENIED.
With respect to Nos. 13-16, the Court finds that plaintiff
demonstrates good cause for the discovery sought. Based on plaintiff’s
limitation in the meet and confer letter to transmission, electrical, and
engine issues and the definition of “SUBJECT VEHICLE” to mean 2014 GMC Sierra
1500s (Yashar Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 1 at 3, ¶ 7 & Ex. 3 at 13), plaintiff is
entitled to discovery that is probative of defendant’s knowledge of
transmission, electrical, and engine issues in 2014 GMC Sierra 1500s, including
vehicles other than the subject vehicle, and defendant’s handling of complaints
and repurchases. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th
138, 143-44; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967,
973-74, 994.) 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. ¶¶ 29, 56 [allegation that defendant’s
failure to comply with Song-Beverly was willful]; Civ. Code § 1794(c);
CACI 3244.)
With respect to defendant’s objections based on trade
secret, “the party claiming the [trade secret] privilege has the burden of
establishing its existence.” (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1393.) Defendant offers the declaration of its
Senior Manager/Senior Technical Consultant, Huizhen Lu, who avers that
defendant derives a competitive advantage from its “Policies and Procedures
related to warranty repair work and reimbursement to the repair facility” from
defendant’s streamlining of operations and decisions. (Brar Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex.
C at ¶ 38.) Lu’s generalized declaration is lacking in details concerning how a
competitor could benefit from knowing defendant’s processes concerning warranty
claims. (Code Civ. Proc. § 3426.1, subd. (d) [“trade secret” is “information,
including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique,
or process, that: (1) [d]erives independent economic value… from not being
generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value
from its disclosure or use; and (2) [i]s the subject of efforts that are
reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”].) Even if the
document requests seek trade secrets, the parties can agree to enter into a
protective order.
The motion is GRANTED IN PART. No later than fifteen (15)
days hereof, defendant General Motors LLC shall serve further verified
responses, without objection, to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 13-16
and produce documents responsive thereto in accordance with the rulings herein.
Given the mixed result, plaintiff’s request for monetary
sanctions is DENIED.