Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCV00862, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV00862, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00862 Hearing Date: January 21, 2025 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Bagdasaryan v. General Motors Company, Case no. 24SMCV00862

Hearing date January 17, 2025

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery

Plaintiff Bagdasaryan sues defendants General Motors LLC and Cadillac of Beverly Hills for breach of warranties under Song-Beverly and Magnuson-Moss arising from nonconformities and defects in a new vehicle purchased by plaintiff. Plaintiff served initial discovery requests 6/19/24; plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set one. Plaintiff offers a separate statement per CRC 3.1345 and the declaration of counsel Markarian. Defendant General Motors opposes and offers a separate statement and the declaration of counsel Dobson.

Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant General Motors’s Separate Statement

Plaintiff objects to defendant’s separate statement as unauthorized. Neither CRC 3.1110 et seq. nor CRC 3.1345 et seq. nor any statute in the CCP authorizes the party opposing a motion to compel further responses to discovery to file a separate statement. The court did not grant leave for defendant to file a separate statement. SUSTAINED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery

To compel the production of documents, moving party must show good cause. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(1). Good cause exists where the requested documents are relevant and the discovery is needed for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. Assoc. Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98. Litigants do not, however, have unfettered access to whatever information they want. Covell v. Superior Court (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 39, 42-43. Under §2019.030 of the Cal. Code Civ. Proc. discovery must be tailored to each case.

Plaintiff served 62 requests for production of documents. Decl. Markarian exh. A. Defendant furnished objections and substantive responses to all requests. Decl. Markarian exh. B. Plaintiff moves to compel supplemental responses to requests for production nos. 1-28, 33-36, 41-45, 47-52, and 54-59. Plaintiff argues defendant’s responses violate Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2031.220 by failing to represent that “all documents or things in the demanded category that are in defendant’s possession, custody, or control were included in the production.” Mtn. Comp. Further Disc. 6:20-21. Plaintiff argues there is no way to know if all documents requested were provided. The court notes defendant asserts it produced any requested documents in its possession, custody or control, subject to defendant actually possessing said documents. Decl. Markarian exh. B. This is not, as plaintiff argues, a modification of the language of §2031.220; defendant represents it will produce all non-privileged documents to which it has access. Defendant’s responses are compliant under §2031.220.

Plaintiff argues defendant’s responses to requests nos. 2, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 33, and 42 violate §2031.230 by “(1) failing to confirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made; (2) not specifying 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 defendant; and (3) not including a statement of the name or address of any natural person or organization known or believed by defendant to have possession, custody, or control of the responsive document.” Mtn. Comp. Further Disc. 8:19-23. Plaintiff asserts defendant’s responses omit the third requirement of

§2031.230; the court notes §2031.230 only requires a party to disclose such information if it is known or believed by the disclosing party. Defendant represents it was “not aware” of responsive documents following reasonable inquiry. Decl. Markarian exh. B. Defendant’s responses are compliant under §2031.230.

Plaintiff argues defendant’s objections fail to comply with the specificity requirements of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2031.240. This is incorrect; defendant’s objections identify the request being objected to and the basis thereof, i.e., attorney-client privilege, trade secret, etc. See Decl. Markarian exh. B. Defendant’s objections comply with §2031.240.

Plaintiff asserts defendant raises “vague & ambiguous,” “overbroad” and “burdensome & oppressive” objections to plaintiff’s requests nos. 7-41, 43-59. Decl. Markarian exh. B. Plaintiff argues these objections are boilerplate and without merit. “Courts generally do not sustain this kind of objection unless the question is totally unintelligible.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782. An objection that a particular item of discovery is “overbroad” is typically used in responding to interrogatories, and even then, the objection is looked upon with disfavor and is rarely sustained. Id.

Defendant’s boilerplate objections are without merit, but as defendant has produced compliant documents notwithstanding the objections, plaintiff’s argument is irrelevant. Plaintiff argues defendant’s attorney-client privilege, work product and trade secret objections are without merit because plaintiff excludes such documents from its requests for production. Decl. Markarian exh. A. Defendant is entitled to raise such objections; that plaintiff provided a disclaimer does not abrogate that right.

Defendant argues plaintiff failed to comply with Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2025.450 by failing to meet-and-confer in good faith. Decl. Dobson paras. 4-8. Plaintiff argues defendant failed to comply with the court’s order that the parties should meet and confer 10/8/24. Min. Order 9/18/24; decl. Markarian paras. 11-17. Defendant does not address its failure to comply with the court’s 9/18/24 order. Defendant cannot assert plaintiff failed in its meet-and-confer obligations when it also failed its obligations.

Plaintiff argues defendant should be sanctioned $7,210 for compelling plaintiff to bring the instant motion. This is unavailing; defendant furnished substantive, code-compliant responses. Defendant’s objections and failure to attend the 10/8/24 meet and confer discovery conference do not nullify its production of responsive documents. The motion was unnecessary; sanctions will not be awarded.

Defendant stated it produced all non-privileged documents in its possession or control as requested. DENIED.