Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2022-01294052, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiffs Heidi and Sean Gill's motion to compel Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”) to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production, is granted.
Plaintiffs move for an order compelling GM to provide further responses to their first set of requests for production of documents, nos. 16, 19-32, 37-41, and 45-46.
Timeliness of Motion
GM asserts this motion is untimely, but has not provided sufficient information for the court to determine when the 45-day period expired. Specifically, the court was not provided with the method of service of GM’s verification. Depending on the method of service, it is possible that the motion was timely filed on July 5, 2023.
Merits
On receipt of the response to a document demand, 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.) To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both: relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; see Kirkland v. Sup.Ct. (Guess?, Inc.) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)
“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.)
Despite its original response that it would not comply with the requests, it appears GM has since produced documents responsive to nos. 16, 19-32 and 45-46, on June 26, 2023. (Thomas Decl. at ¶ 15.) GM suggests it does not need to provide further responses, and that this motion is moot so long as it produced the documents. This approach is not a valid option under the Code. Accordingly, as to requests nos. 16, 19-32 and 45-46, GM is ordered to provide further responses that reflect its compliance, and include the identification of the specific request number to which its document production corresponds. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).)
As to requests nos. 37-41, GM’s objections alone, do not warrant a refusal to comply. It appears Plaintiffs are asking for “two .pdf files of two pages each, and appear to be taken from the appendix to some sort of manual” in response to these requests. Plaintiffs claim “Defendant has produced the same four pages” in “dozens of cases” and that these “codes are essential to generally interpreting the repair orders and internal GM documents produced in this litigation,” as they are “utilized by Defendant to keep track of warranty repairs, customer complaints to authorized repair facilities, the type of repairs to be attempted, the frequency of repairs, and other information by vehicle component such that Defendant is aware of the repairs its authorized repair facilities are performing.” (Reply, at p. 2.)
GM objected to these requests on the grounds of relevance, burden, oppression, and because they purportedly seek “confidential, proprietary and trade secret information.” To the extent this four page document exists, and is responsive to these requests, GM has not justified its objections. The declaration from GM’s Senior Manager/Senior Technical Consultant of Engineering Analysis, Huizhen Lu, does not discuss the use of “codes” as being a trade secret, or explain how the production of “code explanations” could cause injury to GM’s business.
GM is ordered to provide a further response, and, to the extent they exist, to produce responsive documents. Assuming the four page document is responsive, GM need not provide code explanations for codes that are not associated with the subject vehicle.
GM’s further responses and production are to be served within 20 days of the notice of ruling.
In connection with this motion, Plaintiffs are awarded $2,310 in monetary sanctions against GM. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) The sanctions are payable to Knight Law Group LLP within 30 days of the notice of ruling.
Plaintiffs shall give notice of the ruling.