Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22AHCV00588, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT PER CRC 3.1308

The Court will attempt to post all Tentative Rulings at least the day prior to the hearing by 3:00 p.m.; however, the Court does not post Tentative Rulings for all matters.  

The
Court will indicate in the Tentative Ruling whether the Court is requesting oral argument.  For cases where the Court is not requesting argument, then pursuant to
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is
required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no
argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the
court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention
to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the
court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”   

Notice
may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818)
260-8412.

Notice of the ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative.  Remote appearances are permitted for all law and motion unless otherwise indicated by the Court.  

Case Number: 22AHCV00588    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION & FURTHER RESPONSES

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Erika Contreras (Plaintiff) brings this action against General Motors, LLC (GM) for alleged violation of the Song Beverly Act. Plaintiff alleges GM sold her a defective 2022 Chevrolet Silverado 1500. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the Subject Vehicle suffers recurring and unpredictable engine defects. 

Plaintiff now moves to compel the deposition of GM’s Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) as well as to compel further production in response to her Request for the Production of Documents (RFPD) Nos. 2-3, 8, 15, 18, 23, 32-33, and 36. GM opposes the motion and Plaintiff replies.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

Motion to Compel Deposition

If, after service of a deposition notice,  a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under C.C.P. § 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under C.C.P. § 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (C.C.P.§ 2025.450(a).)

If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent. (C.C.P.§ 2025.230.)

The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (C.C.P.§ 2025.450(b)(1).)

The motion shall also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (C.C.P.§ 2025.450(b)(2).)

If the proposed deponent made some response to the deposition notice, then a separate statement must accompany any motion to compel deposition attendance or production. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(b).)

Motion to Compel Further Production

A motion to compel further responses to RFPD may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (C.C.P. § 2031.310(c).) 

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See C.C.P. § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”  

If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

“The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (C.C.P. § 2017.020(a).) Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of (a) the propounding party’s subjective intent to create burden or (b) the amount of time and effort it would take to respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, no such evidence is necessary where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)  

II.                 MERITS

As an initial matter, the Court notes that plaintiff’s 174-page separate statement is excessive for a single discovery motion. While cutting and pasting may have saved time for Plaintiff’s counsel, the voluminous document made the Court’s task overly burdensome. “Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” (U.S. v. Dunkel (7th Cir. 1991) 972 F.2d 955, 956.)

Motion to Compel Deposition - Granted

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of GM’s PMQ pursuant to C.C.P. § 2025.450. A motion under section 2025.450 shall set forth facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (C.C.P. § 2025.450(b)(1).) A showing of “good cause” is made by declarations containing specific facts justifying inspection of the documents described in the notice. (Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial § 8:801.2 (Rutter Group 2021).)

On October 27, 2023, Plaintiff served GM with a Notice of Deposition of PMQ. On November 2, 2023 GM served objections but agreed to produce a witness as to Category Nos. 1-4, 7, 10 and 20 at a mutually agreeable time and place.  Given that GM has agreed to many categories, the parties shall conduct the deposition of GM’s PMQ within 35 days of this order as to any categories on which they can reach agreement.

After the deposition, Plaintiff may move to compel further deposition of GM’s PMQ as to any categories on which the parties are unable to reach agreement. (C.C.P. § 2025.480.) Prior to filing such a motion, counsel for the parties shall meet and confer. Plaintiff shall submit a separate statement, not to exceed 20 pages, with the motion.

Motion to Compel Further Responses – Granted in Part and Denied in Part

Plaintiff requests an order compelling GM to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s RFPD Nos. 2-3, 8, 15, 18, 23, 32-33, and 36.

RFPD Nos. 2, 3 and 8 - Denied

RFPD No. 2 & 3, seek the Subject Vehicle’s warranty repair history, internal reports, memoranda, correspondence, and regional field reports. GM asserts various objections but agreed to produce any repair orders, service request activity reports, repair order details, repair order summary and global warranty history report for the Subject Vehicle. (Crandall Decl. Exh. 6, RFPD Nos. 2, 3.) Plaintiff’s reason for compelling further production states that GM has produced no documents responding to this request, which appears to be a misstatement. Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating why the documents GM produced in reference to this request are insufficient, a burden they have not carried. The same can be said of RFPD No. 8, in which Plaintiff also states GM has not produced any documents responsive to the request.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to RFPD Nos. 2, 3, and 8.

RFPD No. 15 - Granted

RFPD No. 15 requests all documents GM uses to evaluate a consumers’ request for vehicle repurchase.  This would include any and all documents used to evaluate requests for repurchase related to the engine defect. The Court finds GM’s objections are unpersuasive, and Plaintiff has shown good cause for further production. The existence of corporate repurchase policies are highly probative whether GM’s refusal to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Court disagrees with GM’s objection that the term “engine defect” is vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff specifically defined the term in the RFPD. (See Crandall Decl. Exh. 6, p. 3.) Furthermore, any objection by GM that this request’s disclosure would violate trade secrets, the parties previously stipulated to a protective order to safeguard against such violations. (Crandall Decl. Exh. 9.)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to RFPD No 15.

RFPD No. 18 - Denied

RFPD No. 18 which requests notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls concerning the engine defect. In response GM asserted various objections but also stated GM will, at Plaintiff’s request, search for and produce, if located, copies of a reasonable number of TSBs and ISBs, if any, that Plaintiff has identified as specifically related to the defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s statement of insufficiency only states that TSB are relevant discoverable material to which Plaintiff is entitled. Neither the separate statement, nor the memorandum in support of the motion address why the production already agreed to be GM is insufficient.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to RFPD No. 18.

RFPD No. 23 - Denied

RFPD No. 23 requests all documents, including but not limited to electronic data and e-mails, concerning or relating in any way to any internal analysis or investigation by GM regarding the engine defect. The Court finds GM’s objection that this request is not reasonably restricted to vehicles of the same make/model to be valid. Without any temporal or other restrictions on this request, the request is overly burdensome, in that it will likely require the production of documents far beyond those relevant to the subject vehicle.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to RFPD No. 23.

RFPD No. 32 - Denied

RFPD No. 32 simply states, “Please produce all Lemon Law Documents.” Although this term is defined in the RFPD, the Court finds the definition renders the request overly broad on its face. It appears the Plaintiff is using “Lemon Law Documents” as a catchall for numerous categories of documents, each of which could be the subject of their own succinct request.

RFPD No. 33 - Denied

RFPD No. 33 requests any communications regarding the causal or contributing factors to the engine defect. Plaintiff has not shown good cause to compel further production to this request. It would appear to the Court that any responses regarding RFPD No. 18 would necessarily include communications regarding the factors contributing to the engine defect.

RFPD No. 36 - Denied

RFPD No. 36 requests production of TSB 21-NA-231. In response GM asserted various objections but also explicitly stated it would produce a copy of TSB 21-NA-231. Plaintiff’s motion does not sufficiently explain why this production is unsatisfactory.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Erika Contreras’ Motion to Compel Deposition and Motion to Compel Further came on regularly for hearing on February 16, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION IS GRANTED IN PART.

THE PARTIES SHALL CONDUCT THE DEPOSITION OF GM’S PMQ WITHIN 35 DAYS OF THIS ORDER AS TO ANY CATEGORIES ON WHICH THEY CAN REACH AGREEMENT.

PLAINTIFF MAY MOVE TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION OF GM’S PMQ AS TO ANY CATEGORIES ON WHICH THE PARTIES ARE UNABLE TO REACH AGREEMENT.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES IS GRANTED AS TO NO. 15 AND DENIED AS TO OTHERS (NOS. 2, 3, 8, 18, 23, 32, 33 AND 36).

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  February 16, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles