Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 22AHCV00166, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV00166 Hearing Date: August 19, 2022 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 8/19/2022 – 8:30am
Case No: 22AHCV00166
Trial Date: June 26, 2023
Case Name: AMELIA LOPEZ v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC
TENTATIVE
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
Moving Party: Plaintiff, Amelia Lopez
Responding Party: Defendant, General Motors LLC
Oppo and Reply
Submitted
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): ok
Proper Address: ok
RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff
moves for an order striking Defendant’s objections and compelling further
responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One Nos. 7,
10, 16, 18-19, 21, 36, and 38.
Plaintiff’s motion is
made pursuant to CCP §2031.310 on the grounds that Defendant has failed to provide
adequate responses to Plaintiff’s requests, which seek documents directly
relevant to her claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
PROCEDURAL
45 Days
Unless
notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified
response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific
later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in
writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to
the demand. (CCP §2031.310(c).)
Plaintiff alleges that on June 8, 2022, Defendant
e-mail served its unverified responses to the RFP and at the time of the filing
of the instant motion on July 26, 2022, the responses remained unverified. However,
Defendant alleges in its Opposition that it served verifications on July 6,
2022. (Major Decl. ¶2.) In Reply, Plaintiff does not address the issue of when
verifications were served. Assuming Defendant served verifications on July 6,
2022, the instant motion is timely.
Meet and Confer
“The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under
Section 2016.040.” (CCP §2031.310(b)(2).)
Plaintiff has met and conferred with Defendant on several occasions. (See Decl.
Oliva ¶20-28.) Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in
good faith, but the Court finds this argument unpersuasive.
BACKGROUND
This
complaint arises out of Plaintiff’s purchase on or about October 12, 2019, of a
2019 Chevrolet Colorado. Plaintiff alleges that during the warranty period, the
subject vehicle contained or developed defects, including but not limited to a
defective ignition system, defective engine system, defective body system, and
any additional complaints made by Plaintiff where or not they are contained in
the records or any repair orders.
Plaintiff alleges five causes of action: (1) Violation
of Civil Code §1793.2(d), (2) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(b), Violation of
Civil Code §1793.2(a)(3), Breach of Express Written Warranty Civil Code
§1791.2(a) and §1794, and (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability
§1791.1 and §1794.
Plaintiff alleges that on May 9, 2022, Plaintiff
propounded RFP(1) on Defendant seeking documents in the following general
categories: (1) those relating to GM’s internal investigation and analysis of
the Engine Defects plaguing Plaintiff’s vehicle and establishing that Defendant
previously knew of such Defects but refused to repurchase the vehicle (Nos. 16,
18-19, 21); and (2) those relating to Defendant’s warranty and vehicle
repurchase policies, procedures, and practices (Nos. 7, 10, 36, 38).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has responded by way
of boilerplate objections and evasive, non-code-compliant responses. Plaintiff
also alleges, “No documents concerning Defendant’s investigations and analysis
leading up to the issuance of a particular TSB or warranty extension were
included. Furthermore, Defendant has produced no documents at all, despite GM’s
representations that responsive documents would be produced. There is no
indication that appropriate searches for ESI, email communications, and other
data were conducted. This is especially concerning given the fact that not a
single email, memo, or internal communication was produced” (Mot. p. 5.)
LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION
Under §2031.210, the party to
whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed
shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the
following:
(1)¿A statement that the party
will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling
pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision I of Section 2031.030 and any related
activities.
(2)¿A representation that the
party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying,
testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.
(3)¿An objection to the
particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.
(CCP §2031.210(a).)
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310,
the Court may order a responding party to serve a further response to a
request for production when the Court finds that any of the following
apply:
Unlike with requests to compel further
interrogatories, a moving party seeking to compel further responses for
requests for production must show good cause along with satisfaction of the
meet and confer requirement. (CCP§ 2031.310(b.) “Good cause” is
shown when a moving party provides sufficient facts that the requests are [discovery]
relevant, (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th
92, 97.); i.e., that the requests at issue are reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff has shown good cause for most
of the discovery orders she now seeks in her moving papers, specifically in her
Separate Statement, and in the Declaration of Vanessa J. Oliva.
Throughout its opposition papers, Defendant relies
heavily on the opinion in Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997-4th
Dist.) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216. But that case, and particularly that
Court’s diatribe as to the limits of discovery in California at pages 219-225,
is completely distinguishable from this matter.
Here, the discovery requests are from one party to another, not a
third-party subpoena. More importantly,
the requests here are reasonably tailored and specific, and thus reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
ANALYSIS
RFP 7
The
Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by YOU and provided to YOUR
authorized repair facility(s), within the state of California, from 2019 to the
present. [This request will be understood to include production of any and all
versions of such manual as distributed to YOUR dealerships during the relevant
time frame].
Defendant’s Response to RFP 7
GM
objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that are
irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action.
GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and
that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the
needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues
at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with
limited issues and this request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216,. 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically,
whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth
of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM further objects to
this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the
attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be
produced.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 7
In
Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, Plaintiff states that on July 12, 2022,
Defendant supplemented its production to include the document requested here,
but Defendant has refused to supplement its response to indicate compliance. Since
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant produced the instant document, the Court finds
the objections by Defendant moot and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel
further response to RFP 7 and the Defendant is ordered to provide supplemental
code compliant responses, without objection, clarifying whether it has now
produced all documents responsive to this request, within twenty days.
RFP 10
A
copy of the Workshop Manual specifying diagnosis and repair procedures for
vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
Defendant’s Response to RFP 10
GM
objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that are
irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, GM
will comply in whole and produce the following documents in its possession,
custody and control: the Service Manual applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE (if
available).
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 10
The
Court finds Defendant’s objections without merit and its response evasive.
Defendant states it will comply in whole and then confusingly states it will
produce the Service Manual “if available.” The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion
to compel further response to RFP 10 and the Defendant is ordered to provide
supplemental code compliant responses, without objection, and produce the
subject document within twenty days.
RFP 16
All
DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and
electronic mails, concerning or relating to any internal analysis or
investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding ENGINE DEFECT in vehicles of
the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request shall be
interpreted to include, but not be limited to, any such investigation to
determine the root cause of such ENGINE DEFECT, any such investigation to
design a permanent repair procedure for such ENGINE DEFECT, any such
investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with such ENGINE
DEFECT, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedure, any
savings analysis not implementing a proposed repair procedures, etc.]
Defendant’s Response to RFP 16
GM
objects to this request as the terms “concerning,” “internal analysis,”
“investigation,” and “ENGINE DEFECT” are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects
to this Request on grounds it improperly assumes that there are alleged defects
with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE, or GM Vehicles, generally. GM also objects
to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that are
irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action.
GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and
that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the
needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues
at stake in the litigation. GM argues that his is a simple, individual lemon
law case with limited issues and this request violates Calcor Space Facility,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567.
Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and
breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM further objects to
this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the
attorney-client privilege and/or workproduct doctrine. No documents will be
produced.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 16
For
the most part, the Court finds Defendant’s objections meritless and
boilerplate.
Further, as to Defendant’s objections about these
requests seeking confidential, proprietary, trade secret information and
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product
doctrine, the Court points Defendant to CCP §2031.240(b)-(c)(1):
(b) If the responding party objects to the demand
for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item,
the response shall do both of the following:
(1) 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.
(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the
objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege
invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the
information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with
Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.
(c) (1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim
that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall
provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits
of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.
Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause by explaining
that the requested documents will show that Defendant was aware of the Engine
Defects through internal analysis and investigation in other 2019 GMC Colorado
vehicles, including the Subject Vehicle. Plaintiff has also demonstrated good
cause because Plaintiff alleges it will show that Defendant knew that it lacked
any fix for the defect, but nevertheless refused to repurchase the Subject
Vehicle. However, the Court limits the request to vehicles sold in
California of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to RFP
16 is GRANTED with the limitation stated above and Defendant is ordered to
provide code-compliant responses, without objection, and produce the responsive
documents within twenty days.
RFP 18
All
DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and
electronic mails, concerning or relating to any decision to issue any notices,
letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and
recalls concerning the ENGINE DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and
model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE... [This request shall be interpreted to include
any such investigation to determine the root cause of the ENGINE DEFECT, any
such investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for the ENGINE
DEFECT, any such investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with
the ENGINE DEFECT, any cost analysis for implementing proposed repair
procedures, any savings analysis not implementing proposed repair procedures,
etc.]
Defendant’s Response to RFP 18
GM
objects to this request as the terms “concerning” “issue,” and “ENGINE DEFECT”
are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it
improperly assumes that there are alleged defects with respect to the SUBJECT
VEHICLE, or GM Vehicles, generally. GM also objects to this Request on grounds
it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not limited
to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request
on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be
unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the
amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the
litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and
this request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53
Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is
entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated
and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to
this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret
information. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product
doctrine.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, GM
will comply in part and produce the following documents in its possession,
custody and control: a list of technical service bulletins (“TSBs”) for
vehicles of the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. After it has.
produced a list of TSBs, GM will – at Plaintiff’s request – search for and
produce, if located, copies of a reasonable number of TSBs, if any, that
Plaintiff has identified as relevant to the conditions alleged in Plaintiff’s
complaint. GM states that the SUBJECT VEHICLE has no current record of recalls,
as shown in the following image from the Global Warranty History Report.
RFP 19
All
DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and
electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures,
and warranty claims related to ENGINE DEFECT, including but not limited to any
databases in YOUR possession, with information from dealers, service
departments, parts departments, or warranty departments, and all documents
concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure.
Defendant’s Response to RFP 19
GM
objects to this request as the terms “concerning,” “customer complaints,”
“claims,” “reported failures,” “warranty claims” “related to” and “ENGINE
DEFECT” are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it
improperly assumes that there are alleged defects with respect to the SUBJECT
VEHICLE, or GM Vehicles, generally. GM also objects to this Request on grounds
it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not limited
to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request
on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be
unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the
amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the
litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and
this request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53
Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled
to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated
and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to
this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret
information. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and or work-product
doctrine. No documents will be produced.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 19
Plaintiff
states in its Separate Statement that on July 12, 2022, the Defendant produced
alleged customer complaints in response to this request, but Defendant refused
to produce any other types of documents requested here such as the customer
claims, reported failures, or warranty claims relating to the Engine Defect.
Plaintiff also stated that Defendant has refused to supplement its responses to
indicate its partial compliance with the request after supplementing its
production with the customer complaints.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP
19 is GRANTED limited to the make, model, and year of the subject vehicle, sold
in California, and Defendant is ordered to provide code-compliant responses,
without objection, clarifying that it has produced or will now produce all
documents responsive to this request, as limited, within twenty days. As to Defendant’s objections about these
requests seeking confidential, proprietary, trade secret information and
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product
doctrine, the Court points Defendant to the Court’s tentative ruling in RFP 16.
RFP 21
All
DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and
electronic mails, concerning or relating to any fixes for ENGINE DEFECT in
vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
Defendant’s Response to RFP 21
GM
objects to this request as the terms “concerning,” “relating to,” “fixes” and
“ENGINE DEFECT” are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on
grounds it improperly assumes that there are alleged defects with respect to
the SUBJECT VEHICLE, or GM Vehicles, generally. GM also objects to this Request
on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is
not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to
this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance
would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the
case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in
the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues
and this request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997)
53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is
entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely
unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also
objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and
trade secret information. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it
seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or
work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
Plaintiff argues that:
The requested documents will show that Defendant was
aware of the Engine Defect (including its cause) through, among other methods,
internal analysis and investigation in other 2019 Chevrolet Colorado vehicles,
including the Subject Vehicle. They will also show that Defendant knew that it
lacked any fix for the Defect, but nevertheless refused to repurchase the
Subject Vehicle.8 Furthermore, the documents will demonstrate the nature and
scope of the Defect and will assist Plaintiff’s expert in assessing its impact
on Plaintiff’s vehicle. This information is at the heart of Plaintiff’s claims;
Plaintiff is at a loss to explain why Defendant has refused to provide
responsive documents. Moreover, this discovery can support Plaintiff’s claim
for civil penalty liability by showing Defendant was aware of a prevalent
defect which neither it nor its dealerships could repair. After all,
“computerized recordkeeping at dealership service departments could easily
facilitate (a manufacturer’s awareness of every failed repair attempt), even
without any direct contact from the consumer to the manufacturer or any request
for replacement or reimbursement…” Krotin v. Porsche, 38 Cal.App.4th 294, 303
(1995). And see, Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, 136 (1995)
(in assessing whether a violation is willful, the jury is entitled to consider,
among other things, whether “the manufacturer knew the vehicle had not been
repaired within a reasonable period or after a reasonable number of
attempts.”). Accordingly, evidence that Defendant was aware, or should have
been aware, of a prevalent, unrepairable defect could be introduced to
establish that Defendant willfully failed to abide by its obligations under the
Act by either turning a blind eye to such evidence or adopting internal
policies to avoid discovery of such facts.
Defendant’s provides further argument can be found in its
Opposition separate statement, on pages 8-15.
The Court finds Defendant’s arguments as to this RFP
21 unpersuasive. The Motion is granted
as to RFP 21, and Defendant is to provide a code-compliant further response,
without objection, producing all documents responsive to this Request, further limited
to vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the subject vehicle, sold
in California, within twenty days.
RFP 36
All
DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to procedures used by YOU
for the handling of complaints by consumers regarding vehicles YOU manufactured
or distributed.
Defendant’s Response to RFP 36
GM
objects to this Request on grounds the terms “evidence, describe, refer, or
relate to” are overbroad, vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request
on grounds that it would require GM to compile information related to GM
world-wide on every vehicle sold, none of which are related to this individual
lawsuit or the SUBJECT VEHICLE. This is a simple, individual lemon law case
with limited issues and this Request also violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc.
v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically,
whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth
of this request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM’s
internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the
extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or
work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 36
In
Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, Plaintiff stated that on July 12, 2022,
Defendant supplemented its production with documents responsive to this request,
yet Defendant continues to refuse to supplement its response to indicate
compliance.
Calcor, supra, 53
Cal. App. 4th 216, is, again, not on point. Since Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
produced the instant documents, the Court finds the objections by Defendant
moot and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP 36 and
the Defendant is ordered to provide supplemental code compliant responses,
clarifying which documents it has produced responsive to this request, and that
Defendant has produced all responsive documents, within twenty days.
RFP 38
All
DOCUMENTS issued by YOU or on YOUR behalf which evidence, describe, refer, or
relate to policies, procedures, and/or instructions since 2019 that YOUR
employees and agents should follow when evaluating a customer request for a
refund of the price paid for a vehicle or replacement of a new motor vehicle
manufactured or distributed by YOU.
Defendant’s Response to RFP 38
GM
objects to this Request on grounds the terms “evidence, describe, refer, or
relate to” are overbroad, vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request
on grounds that it would require GM to compile information related to GM
world-wide on every vehicle sold, none of which are related to this individual
lawsuit or the SUBJECT VEHICLE. This is a simple, individual lemon law case
with limited issues and this Request also violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc.
v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically,
whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth
of this request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM’s
internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the
extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or
work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
TENTATIVE RULING RFP 38
Plaintiff’s
separate statement states that on July 12, 2022, Defendant supplemented its
production with documents responsive to this request, yet Defendant continues
to refuse to supplement its response to indicate compliance. The Court’s ruling
as to RFP 38 is thus the same as the ruling for RFP 36.
SANCTIONS
Except
as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction
under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person,
or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further
response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction
acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP §2031.310(h).)
Since neither moving
nor opposition party requested sanctions, the Court finds that it
would be unjust to award sanctions to either party as to this Motion.