Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 22SMCV02074, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02074    Hearing Date: August 22, 2023    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

ALFREDO ESPINOZA GOMEZ, 

  

Plaintiff, 

v. 

 

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, et al.,  

 

Defendants. 

 

  Case No.:  22SMCV02074 

  

  Hearing Date:  August 22, 2023 

  

 

  [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: 

  PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL  

  FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS  

  FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,  

  SET ONE 

 

 

 

This is a lemon law case.  Plaintiff Alfred Gomez alleges that his 2020 GMC Sierra, which was manufactured and distributed by Defendant General Motors, LLC, suffers from widespread defects and that Defendant has been unable to repair his car within a reasonable number of attempts.  Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant knew the car suffered from the defects, but nevertheless refused to repurchase it – a violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  

Plaintiff served document requests, set one, on Defendant seeking documents relating to Defendant’s internal investigation and analysis of the defects plaguing Plaintiff’s car.  Defendant served only objections to Request Nos. 16-17 and 19-21.  According to Plaintiff, Defendant have produced no documents concerning their investigations and analysis of similar defects, and specifically, it has not produced a single email, memo or internal communication.   

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to provide further discovery responses to the document requests.  Plaintiff seeks an order striking Defendant’s objections and  compelling Defendant to provide further responses and produce additional documents including ESI.   

On a motion to compel further, this Department’s rules require Plaintiff to file a joint statement consisting of four columns: the first column will identify the number of the discovery request; the second, the text of the discovery request; the third, the text of the response, and the fourth, brief bullet-point statements, one from each party as to why a further response should or should not be compelled.  No joint statement was filed.   

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his requests for production of documents, set one.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: August 22, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court