Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2022-01266843, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Alan Flores’ motion to compel Defendant General Motors, LLC’s ("GM") further responses to his requests for production of documents is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to nos. 16-17, 19-32, 37-41, and 45-46. The motion is denied as to nos. 18 and 33.
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff's notice of motion refers to Defendants Selman Chevrolet Co. and GM. However, the discovery at issue was only as to GM. To the extent Plaintiffs seeks to compel further responses from Selman Chevrolet Co., it is denied.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 provides, in relevant part, that “any party may obtain discovery” by “inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (a).) Section 2031.210 requires a party responding to an inspection demand to respond with (1) a statement that it will comply, (2) a representation that it does not have the ability to comply, or (3) an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) An agreement to comply must be rather specific. If the party responds with a statement of compliance, it must specify whether production “will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) If the party responds with a representation that it does not have the ability to comply, it “shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.” Additionally, it “shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)
On receipt of the response, the demanding party may move to compel a further response if any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete or evasive; (3) an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery, and it must be accompanied by a separate statement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.) Absent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the burden of showing good cause may be met by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 8:1495.6.) “If ‘good cause’ is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 8:1496 [citing Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98].)
Plaintiff propounded the subject requests for production of documents on GM. GM served responses on November 11, 2022. With the responses, GM produced 40 separate PDFs. The parties met and conferred. As of the time the motion was filed, GM had not supplemented its responses or produced any additional documents. (Bissman Decl., ¶¶ 5-14.) The following requests are at issue: nos. 16-33, 37-41, and 45-46.
Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280, Subdivision (a)
Plaintiff asserts that when GM produced the PDF documents, it failed to "include any title of the documents, failed to include an index, and failed to identify the specific request to which the untitled documents respond as required by" Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.280, subdivision (a). (Not., at p. 1.) Plaintiff contends that GM should be ordered to provide a new set of the 40 documents that had been produced, that at least have a minimum explanation as to what is included in each PDF and to be compliant with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280. Plaintiff does not point to any authority that requires an index or explanation of what is included in each document production. (See Mot., at pp. 3-4.) With respect to the 40 documents produced, it appears that GM did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, which states that “[a]ny documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” At this point, however, GM has identified which of the specific request numbers correspond with the documents produced. (See Opp., at pp. 5-6.) Plaintiff's request to order GM to provide a new set of the 40 documents that had been produced, is denied.
No. 18
This request seeks the operative franchise agreement between GM and the dealership that sold Plaintiff's vehicle on the date of sale of Plaintiff's vehicle. Such a document is irrelevant to Plaintiff's burden of proof as to the claimed violations of the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause as to compel a further response. As a result, the motion is denied as to no. 18.
Nos. 33
This request seeks all technical service bulletins which had been issued for the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff's vehicle. GM has substantively complied with its discovery obligations with this request. Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to compel further response. As a result, the motion is denied as to no. 33.
Nos. 16-17, 19-32, 37-41, and 45-46
To all but no. 17, GM responded with only objections, stating that no documents would be produced. As to no. 17, GM also indicated that no documents would be produced. (Bissman Decl., Exh. B.) Pursuant to the opposition and reply briefs, GM has since produced a number of additional documents and may be producing more in the future. (See Opp. at pp. 1 and 5:25-6:9; Reply at p. 1:23-25.) GM contends that as a result, “there is nothing for this Court to compel.” (Opp. at p. 6:9.) Pursuant to GM’s own representations, however, the documents are responsive to the requests at issue. (See Opp., at pp. 5-6.) The only verified responses that have been served state that no documents will be produced. The responses are no longer accurate. Further responses must be provided as to these requests. As a result, within 20 days of the notice of ruling, GM shall provide verified, Code-compliant further responses to 16-17, 19-32, 37-41, and 45-46.
Within 30 days of the notice of ruling, GM shall pay $1,580 to Knight Law Group LLP. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)
Plaintiff shall give notice of ruling.