Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00619, Date: 2024-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00619    Hearing Date: February 9, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE

ALLEGATIONS: 

On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff Abimelec Burgos (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against General Motors, LLC (GM) for GM’s alleged violation of the Song Beverly Act. The Complaint alleges five causes of action for (1) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(d), (2) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(b), (3) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(a)(3), (4) breach of express written warranty, and (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

On April 21, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to discovery demands. Plaintiff now moves to compel GM’s compliance with that order. GM opposes the motion and Plaintiff replies.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (C.C.P. § 2031.320(a).)

“[I]f a party then fails to obey an order compelling inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7.” (C.C.P. § 2031.320(c).)

II.                 MERITS

GM’s Supplemental Production

On June 16, 2023, GM served is supplemental responses and document production. (Manno Decl. ¶ 6.) These responses consisted of a number of additional documents and an identification of responsive documents by their Bates number. (Manno Decl. Exh. 2.) The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s argument that the reference to the Bates number is somehow GM’s attempt to limit document production to just those documents. It is clear that GM is identifying the responsive documents by their Bates number in an effort to direct Plaintiff to the appropriate responses, not to limit their production. GM’s production contains the statement that they have produced all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s request and stated they have complied in whole with each request. (Id.)

It appears Plaintiff is primarily concerned that GM has not produced any “engineering email, root cause analysis memo, engineering memo, or failure rate chart” which led to the creation of the Technical Service Bulletin GM produced for the Subject Vehicle. (Manno Decl. Exh. 3, p. 2.) In opposition, GM states that its supplemental production included numerous internal investigation documents including the following:

(1) the CAC and TAC spreadsheets containing a listing of customer complaints in 2021 Chevrolet Tahoe vehicles; (2) a list of not in suit matters (“NISM) and repurchases; (3) PRTS reports for the 2021 Chevrolet Tahoe vehicles (which contain customer complaint, root cause and corrective action information); (4) lists of EWOs and TWOs for the 2021 Chevrolet Tahoe; (5) all available versions of specific TSBs applicable to the Subject Vehicle and related investigation reports, if any; (6) bulletins for field actions, including recalls, for the 2021 Chevrolet Tahoe; (7) DFMEA reports for the 2021 Chevrolet Tahoe; and (8) Safety Investigation Listings

(Kay Decl. ¶ 3.)

GM further argues that these documents include multi-page, highly detailed spreadsheets and other technical documents detailing GM’s investigation into the alleged defects. (Oppo. p 3.) Lastly, GM states that these documents are the extent of the responsive documents in their possession. Essentially GM argues they cannot produce what they do not have.

Analysis

The Court does not find that GM failed to permit the inspection of documents in accordance with a statement of compliance as per C.C.P. § 2031.320. The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments do not speak to the grounds on which it claims to have brought the motion.

Plaintiff’s primary argument in their motion is that GM has not fully complied with the Court’s April 21, 2023 order compelling further discovery responses. Plaintiff argues the subsequent production pursuant to the Court’s April 21, 2023 order was insufficient. These arguments do not assert that GM has failed to comply with a statement that it would produce documents, rather they suggest GM has produced documents which Plaintiff believes are not completely responsive. Such situations as more appropriately addressed via a motion to compel further responses pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.310.

The Court notes that motions to compel further responses must be served within 45 days after service of a verified response. Plaintiff filed and served this motion on December 1, 2023, well after the time limit for a motion to compel further responses. Even were the Court to treat this motion as one to compel further responses, the Court does not find Plaintiff has shown good cause for further production. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there exist further responsive documents in GM’s possession which it is refusing to produce.

In short, the Court finds that GM’s supplemental production does not constitute a failure to permit inspection of the documents which were the subject of the Court’s April 21 order. GM has provided supplemental production accompanied by the statement that such production comprises all responsive documents in their possession. Plaintiff’s arguments speak more to a motion to compel further responses than a motion to compel compliance under C.C.P. § 2031.300.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Discovery Referee

There have been approximately two discovery motions filed in this action to date. Based on the Court’s prior experience with lemon law actions, the Court anticipates that multiple additional discovery motions will be filed in this action. The Court anticipates that there will be multiple issues to be resolved, motions to be heard, the present motion is only one in a continuum of many and that the number of documents to be reviewed, with assertions of privilege etc., will make the inquiry inordinately time-consuming. (C.C.P. § 639(e).)

Therefore, the parties are strongly encouraged to stipulate to the appointment of a discovery referee who can more quickly and efficiently address the parties’ needs. If they agree to having someone act as discovery referee, the parties may prepare and submit a stipulation and proposed order pursuant to C.C.P. § 638. The parties are advised that if they are unable to agree on a referee, the Court may in the future appoint one on its own motion pursuant to C.C.P. § 639.

--- 

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 

Abimelec Burgos’ Motion to Compel Compliance came on regularly for hearing on February 9, 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 COMPLIANCE IS DENIED.

A TRIAL PREPARATION ORDER IS ISSUED FOR THE UPCOMING TRIAL.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: February, 9, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles