Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00594, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00594    Hearing Date: September 15, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

ALLEGATIONS: 

On August 18, 2022, Plaintiff Elizabeth Salinas (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against General Motors, LLC (“GM”) for GM’s alleged violation of the Song Beverly Act. The Complaint alleges four causes of action for (1) breach of express written warranty, (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, (3) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2, and (4) fraudulent inducement.

RELIEF REQUESTED:   

Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order compelling GM’s response to Plaintiff’s RFPD as follows:

RFPD Nos. 1, 4, 46, 48, 64 concerning Plaintiff’s vehicle.

RFPD Nos. 2-3, 5-45, 47, 49-63 pertaining to GM’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, procedures, and practices, internal investigation and analysis of the alleged defects of Plaintiff’s vehicle, and investigation of transmission defects in Hydra-Matic Vehicles.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“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

Meet and Confer

Upon review, the Court finds the meet and confer efforts sufficient. (Jacobson Decl. ¶¶ 38-42.)

RFPD Nos. 1, 4, 46, 48, and 64

These requests all concern documents related Plaintiff’s 2021 Chevrolet Traverse (“Subject Vehicle”).

Plaintiff’s motion requests further production with respect to all its RFPD, however the declaration of her counsel only attests to the necessity for those RFPD concerning GM’s investigation of similar defects and its warranty policy. (Jacobson Decl. ¶¶ 32-33.)

GM argues that is has produced all the responsive documents in its possession regarding Plaintiff’s own vehicle. Plaintiff does not reply, and her initial motion does not indicate why the documents produced are insufficient, or the basis for any claim that GM has not produced all responsive documents. As such the motion is DENIED as to RFPD Nos. 1, 4, 46, 48, and 64.

RFPD Nos. 2-3, 5-45, 47, and 49-63

These requests all concern documents related to GM’s internal investigation and analysis of the alleged defects in vehicles which are the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s 2021 Chevrolet Traverse (“Subject Vehicle”).

To determine whether responses can be compelled the Court must first determine if Plaintiff has shown good cause. Plaintiff submits the declaration of her counsel, Kevin Jacobson, which attaches several Technical Service Bulletins (“TSB”) issued by GM. (Jacobson Decl. Exhs. 1-4.) Plaintiff states these TSB are issued by GM and acknowledge the existence of defects in GM’s vehicles. (Jacobson Decl. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff has produced some of the TSB affecting the Subject Vehicle, which she argues provides good cause for his requests.

The Court agrees. The TSBs in relation to the subject vehicle create good cause for Plaintiff’s document requests. Plaintiff’s requests relate directly to Defendant's investigation, analysis, and communications regarding the same defects or same parts as the subject vehicle. The good cause showing is not stringent and is adequately made here.

If good cause is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to disclosure of the documents. GM objects to each RFPD on the same grounds. The Court will address them in turn.

GM first objects to these requests on grounds the terms are vague and ambiguous. The Court finds Plaintiff’s Requests for Documents are not vague and ambiguous as they are accompanied by a definition section which identifies those documents to be produced with reasonable clarity. (Jacobson Decl. Exh. 5, pg. 2.) To the extent GM claims the vehicle defects are vaguely defined, they do not elaborate on how Plaintiff’s current definitions are insufficient.

GM also objects on grounds the requests are overbroad and seek documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because they are not limited to the vehicle at issue in this action.

In the discovery context, information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [citations omitted] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612.) It must be noted that discovery rules are to be applied liberally “and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.” (Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 646, 653-654.) In fact, evidence regarding other vehicles with similar defects as Plaintiff's could potentially be admissible at trial in a lemon law action. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154; see also Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 971.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s requests are reasonably particularized.

GM argues Donlen is irrelevant to the issue of discoverability. (Oppo. pg. 6.) The Court disagrees. While Donlen does not specifically address the scope of discovery requests, it does concern the admissibility of evidence of defects in similar vehicles. It follows that if evidence of a type is admissible then it must also be discoverable. Further, the Court disregards Defendant's citation to hearing transcripts in other cases within the Los Angeles Superior Court as they have no precedential value. (Valencia Decl. Ex. A-B.)

GM also objects on grounds the requests are burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.

GM fails to substantiate any objection based on undue burden. Undue burden objections must be accompanied by a specific factual showing setting forth the amount of work necessary to respond to the subject discovery. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court supra, 56 Cal.2d 407, at 417-418.) GM has made no such showing.

GM also objects on grounds the requests seek confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM submits the declaration of Huizen Lu (“Lu”), attached to the Valencia declaration. The Lu declaration demonstrates that warranty related documents contain highly confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive information such as engineering, warranty, and root cause analysis; engineering and manufacturing specifications and testing; component or product improvement; and costs and financial forecasts. (Lu Decl. ¶¶ 33 & 38). Accordingly, GM requests that any further production ordered of them be subject to a protective order. The Court finds this request reasonable however, GM has not filed for a protective order or included a proposed order in its opposition. Should GM wish their subsequent production to be subject protective order they must file the requisite motion. Alternatively, the parties may choose to stipulate to a protective order.

Lastly, GM objects on grounds the requests seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. However, GM’s declaration contains no aversion to documents requested by Plaintiff which may be subject to either of the above privileges.

Plaintiff has shown good cause for an order that further documents be produced. GM has failed to justify its objections to these requests. As such, the Court GRANTS the motion with respect to RFPD Nos. 2-3, 5-45, 47, 49-63.

--- 

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 

Elizabeth Salinas’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents came on regularly for hearing on September 15, 2023, 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 FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS GRANTED AS TO NOS. 1, 4, 46, 48, AND 64.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS GRANTED AS TO NOS. 2-3, 5-45, 47, AND 49-63.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: September 15, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles