Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV11861, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV11861 Hearing Date: February 14, 2024 Dept: 32
|
JONATHAN
DAVID CHAPLIN, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; et al., Defendants.
|
Case No.: 23STCV11861 Hearing Date: February 14, 2024 order
RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO Plaintiffs’
request for production of documents |
|
|
|
Background
Plaintiff Abraham Amouyal (Plaintiff) commenced this
action against Defendant General Motors, LLC (GM) on May 25, 2023. The Complaint asserts causes of action for
violations of the Song Beverly statute. Plaintiff’s
claims arise from his purchase of a 2022 Chevy Bolt EVU (Vehicle).
DISCUSSION
The Court
finds Plaintiff’s discovery to be overly broad and unduly burdensome. If
Defendant has not done so already, the Court issues the following documents to
be provided to plaintiff:
1.
Defendant
shall produce the “Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual” published by Defendant
and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of
California, for the period of date of purchase of the subject vehicle to present.
2.
Defendant
shall produce any Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins regarding defects
alleged in plaintiff’s complaint for vehicles for the same year, make, and
model of the subject vehicle. Defendant
is not required to do a search of emails.
3.
Defendant
shall produce all documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate
customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act, for the period of date of purchase of the subject vehicle to present.
4.
Defendant
shall produce all repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.
5.
Defendant
shall produce all communications with dealer, factory representative and/or
call center concerning the subject vehicle.
6.
Defendant
shall produce all warranty claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant
concerning the subject vehicle.
7.
Defendant
shall produce any customer complaints prior to May 25, 2023 in vehicles
purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject
vehicle regarding complaints relating to water intrusion from the sunroof.
8.
All
other requests for further production are DENIED.
9.
Production
is subject to a protective order.
10. Defendant shall
provide supplemental responses in compliance with this order within 45 days of
this order.
11. The Court does not
award sanctions as it finds both sides acted with substantial justification.