Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 24STCV19991, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Gregory Sims’ motion to compel further responses from Defendant General Motors LLC’s to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) for Request Nos. 6, 7, 9, 12-18, 20-23, 28, 29, 31, 37-51, 53-58, 65, and 68 is granted. Defendant is to provide further Code-Compliant responses without objections within 10 days.

Plaintiff Gregory Sims (“Sims”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further responses from Defendant General Motors LLC’s (“GM”) (“Defendant”) to his Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) to request Nos. 6, 7, 9, 12-18, 20-23, 28, 29, 31, 37-51, 53-58, 65, and 68 (“Requests”) and production of all non-confidential and confidential responsive documents corresponding to those requests. (Notice of Motion, pgs. ii-iii; C.C.P. §§2031.310, 2031.320.)

Plaintiff fails to indicate he complied with the Court’s strong suggestion to resolve this discovery dispute via an IDC. (See Information Regarding Procedures in Department 71 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse §6(E).)

Further, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration fails to state that he met and conferred in person, by telephone, or via videoconference. However, C.C.P. §2016.040 states that a meet and confer declaration “shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration states that on or about February 27, 2025, his office sent a letter attempting to meet and confer regarding the instant motion. (Decl. of Grigoryan ¶15, Exh. 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer declaration is somewhat sufficient, even though the parties did not engage in a real-time meet and confer. Accordingly, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s motion.

On or about December 17, 2024, Plaintiff electronically served its RFP on Defendant. (Decl. of Grigoryan ¶12, Exh. 2.) On or about January 22, 2025, Defendant served boilerplate objections and responses that are not Code-compliant. (See Decl. of Grigoryan ¶13, Exh. 3.) Plaintiff declares that as of the date of this motion, Defendant has not produced any of the several applicable and pertinent Technical Service Bulletins, emails, memoranda, data or investigations that could help Plaintiff establish Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model. (Decl. of Grigoryan ¶14.)

The Civil Discovery Act provides that a “party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (C.C.P. §2031.010.)

“[E]vidence is ‘relevant’ if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement.” (Moore v. Mercer (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 424, 447.) A party is entitled to discover “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (C.C.P. §2017.010.) The phrase “subject matter” is broader than relevancy to the issues (which determines admissibility of evidence at trial). (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392.) Courts have uniformly held that, for discovery purposes, information should be regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.)

On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant regarding the following categories of information: (A) policies and procedures related to the GM’s policies and procedures (i.e. RFP Nos. 6-7, 9, 29, 37-51, 53-54, 65, and 68); and (B) all documents concerning, referring or relating to GM’s internal analysis, investigations, communications, reports and customer complaints related to alleged defects in both the Subject Vehicle and other customers’ vehicles (i.e. RFP Nos. 12-18, 20-23, 28, 31, and 55-58). (See Motion SS.)

These requests seek production of documents concerning GM’s policies and procedures related to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The requested documents are relevant to the issues related to Defendant’s good faith compliance with the Song-Beverly Act, including Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

Defendant’s responses are not Code-Compliant. Defendant’s boilerplate objections are not proper. (See Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516 [stating boilerplate objections “[lack] . . . the specificity the statute mandates” and their use may be sanctionable].) To the extent documents are withheld due to an objection, the response must (1) identify with particularity the document to which the objection is being made; and (2) set forth the grounds for the objection, including the production of a privilege log if the objection is based on privilege. (C.C.P. §2031.240.)

Defendant only asserts objections and refuses to comply with every Category and every RFP; Defendant has failed to identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made; and when objecting based upon privilege or attorney work product, Defendant has failed to provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log—all in violation of §2031.230.

Accordingly, Defendant is compelled to produce Code-Compliant responses to RFP Nos. 6-7, 9, 29, 37-51, 53-54, 65, and 68 and corresponding documents. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, Defendant is to produce a privilege log.

These requests pertain to seek documents related to consumers’ complaints and Defendant’s repurchases of vehicles that are the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle and that contain the same specified conditions, defects, or nonconformities that Plaintiff presented to Defendant for repair. These requests are relevant to proving Plaintiff’s claims under the Song-Beverly Act.

Accordingly, Defendant is compelled to produce its PMK and Code-Compliant responses to RFP Nos. 12-18, 20-23, 28, 31, and 55-58 and corresponding documents. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, Defendant is to produce a privilege log.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant to RFP Nos. 6, 7, 9, 12-18, 20-23, 28, 29, 31, 37-51, 53-58, 65, and 68 is granted. Defendant is to provide further Code-Compliant responses within 10 days.