Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV35600, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV35600 Hearing Date: October 23, 2023 Dept: 68
Motion to Compel Further Supplemental Responses to Special Interrogatories
Adan Marin, et al. vs. General Motors, LLC, 22STCV35600
Moving Parties: Plaintiffs Adan Marin and Claudia Fernandez
Responding Party: General Motors, LLC
Motion
On June 12, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiffs Adan Marin and Claudia Fernandez’s (Plaintiffs) motion to compel further discovery responses. Defendant General Motors (GM) had 60 days to provide supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ requests. GM served its supplemental responses on August 3, 2023, with verification following on August 7, 2023. Plaintiffs filed this motion on September 26, 2023, pursuant to CCP § 2030.300, because Plaintiffs still take issue with GM’s supplemental responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 43 and 45. Plaintiffs have requested that the Court order GM to provide complete, code-compliant supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 43 and 45.
Plaintiffs argue that GM’s responses to the following requests are in violation of CCP § 2030.300 because they are not as complete as possible given the information available to GM. Plaintiffs argue that the responses are not complete because GM has not provided the identities of all of the parties that Plaintiffs are seeking, including services technicians who looked at the vehicles.
CCP § 2030.300 states:
“(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:
(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.”
Special Interrogatory No. 43:
This request states:
IDENTIFY all PERSON(S) involved in YOUR investigation by full name, address, and telephone number, including any individuals with whom YOU communicated regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
GM’s supplemental response is as follows:
Service Technicians and Service Manager – Win Chevrolet, Inc., 2201 E. 223rd Street, Carson, California 90810, (310) 830-5100. Sales Representatives and Sales Manager – Win Chevrolet, Inc., 2201 E. 223rd Street, Carson, California 90810, (310) 830-5100. James Oaks, Business Resource Support Manager, Technical Customer Care & Aftersales, General Motors LLC, 30930 Russell Ranch Road, Westlake Village, CA 91362; (805) 208-9245; and Plaintiff who may be contacted through his counsel of record – David Barry, Esq., The Barry Law Firm, 11845 Olympic Blvd., Suite 1270, Los Angeles, CA 90064; (310) 684-5859.
Plaintiffs take issue with the fact that GM does not name the Service Technicians, Service Managers, and other dealership personnel who may have knowledge of the repairs performed on the Subject Vehicle. Plaintiffs also state that GM did not include the name of the third-party agent who performed the repurchase investigation on the vehicle. Plaintiffs argue that GM failed to make a good faith effort to obtain this information pursuant to CCP § 2030.220(c).
If GM has access to this information, they should provide it. If they do not, they should so state in their response and indicate that a good faith effort was made to obtain it.
Special Interrogatory No. 45
This request states:
Identify all individuals responsible for YOUR decision to not repurchase or replace the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
GM’s supplemental response reads as follows:
Service Technicians and Service Manager – Win Chevrolet, Inc., 2201 E. 223rd Street, Carson, California 90810, (310) 830-5100. Sales Representatives and Sales Manager – Win Chevrolet, Inc., 2201 E. 223rd Street, Carson, California 90810, (310) 830-5100. James Oaks, Business Resource Support Manager, Technical Customer Care & Aftersales, General Motors LLC, 30930 Russell Ranch Road, Westlake Village, CA 91362; (805) 208-9245; Laurence Braddell, Business Resource Support Manager, General Motors LLC, 30930 Russell Ranch Road, Westlake Village, CA 91362, (213) 814-8051; and Repurchase Reviewer, Dave McWhorter, Teleperformance, Inc. Austin, TX.
As with the previous interrogatory, if GM has access to the information that Plaintiffs are seeking, GM should provide it. If not, they should so state in their response and indicate that a good faith effort was made to obtain the information.
Order