Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 21STCV44424, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV44424 Hearing Date: February 7, 2023 Dept: 37
HEARING DATE: February 7, 2023
CASE NUMBER: 21STCV44424
CASE NAME: Jose Jimenez Gallardo v. Win Chevrolet, Inc., et al.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Jose Jimenez Gallardo
OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant, General Motors, LLC
TRIAL
DATE: None
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Request for Production
OPPOSITION: December 29, 2022
REPLY: January 5,
2023
TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s
motion is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is also denied. GM is to
give notice.
__________________
This is a lemon law action arising out of the purchase by Jose
Jimenez Gallardo (“Plaintiff”) of a 2019 Chevrolet Colorado (the “Vehicle”)
from Defendant Win Chevrolet Inc. dba Win Chevrolet Hyundai (“Win”) and
manufactured by Defendant General Motors, LLC (“GM”). Plaintiff alleges that in
connection with his purchase of the Vehicle from Win, he received an express
written warranty which provided in relevant part that Plaintiff could deliver
the Vehicle for repair to Defendants’ representatives for defects during the
warranty period. Plaintiff alleges that thereafter the Vehicle developed
defects, including defects related to the transmission and engine. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants and their representatives failed to repair the Vehicle
of these defects despite Plaintiff presenting the Vehicle for repair on many
occasions.
Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges causes of action as
follows: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act — Breach of Express Warranty against
GM, (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act — Breach of Implied Warranty against GM,
and (3) negligent repair against Win.
Plaintiff now moves to compel GM to provide further
responses to Requests for Production, Set One from GM, Requests no. 34-36 and
39-40. GM opposes the motion.
Procedural History
GM has not served supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s
discovery to date.
Following GM’s responses, the parties met and conferred with
no resolution. (Powell Decl. ¶¶8-10.) The court thus ordered the parties to
participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) on January 5, 2023.
Following the IDC, Plaintiff agreed to limit the motion to Requests no. 34-36
and 39-40.
The court finds that the Powell Declaration and subsequent
IDC is sufficient to demonstrate the parties’ compliance with their statutory
meet and confer obligations prior to filing the instant motion.
Discussion
After the IDC, Plaintiff’s motion seeks to compel a further
response to each of the following requests: 34-36, 39, and 40. (Notice of
Motion, 2-3.)
No. 34: DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all of YOUR
vehicle symptom codes for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT
VEHICLE.
GM objected to this request on the grounds that “sufficient
to show” and “vehicle symptom codes” are vague and ambiguous terms, and on the
grounds that the request is overbroad, burdensome, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Separate Statement
in Support of Motion, 11.)
Plaintiff contends that a further response to this request
is warranted because the requested documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims
under the Song-Beverly Act and to supporting a claim for civil penalties under
the Song-Beverly Act. (Separate Statement in Support of Motion, 12-14.) In
opposition, GM contends that no further response is warranted because Plaintiff’s
request is overbroad as drafted, as well as Technical Service Bulletins (“TSB”)
and bulletins of “required field actions” for the Vehicle. (Separate Statement
in Support of Opposition, 2-8.)
The court agrees with GM that this request is overbroad as
drafted. This request seeks documents without limitation into “symptom codes”
created by GM regarding defects in all Chevy Vehicles like Plaintiff’s Vehicle.
Thus, it is overbroad as drafted. While Plaintiff is entitled to discovery of
documents pertaining to the Vehicle, Plaintiff does not demonstrate why they
are entitled to all documents of the same year, make and model as the Vehicle. While
Plaintiff argues such discovery is vital in proving his claims, Plaintiff fails
to show how information regarding “symptom codes” for other vehicles may be
useful for his lemon law claims, other than statements to that effect. Thus,
Plaintiff’s motion is denied with respect to request number 34.
No. 35: DOCUMENTS
sufficient to show all of YOUR vehicle component repair codes for the same
year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
Requests 35-36 similarly ask GM to produce documents
regarding vehicle “codes” in other Chevy Vehicles of the same type as
Plaintiff’s Vehicle. For the reasons stated with respect to request 34, the
court denies Plaintiff’s motion as to this request.
No. 36: DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all of YOUR
customer complaint codes from 2019 to present.
Requests 35-36 similarly ask GM to produce documents
regarding vehicle “codes” in other Chevy Vehicles of the same type as
Plaintiff’s Vehicle. For the reasons stated with respect to request 34, the
court denies Plaintiff’s motion as to this request.
No. 39: YOUR reacquired vehicle policy and procedure
manuals applicable to California.
GM responded to this request by objecting that it was
overbroad, burdensome, sought documents not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence, and sought confidential/proprietary trade
secrets. (Separate Statement in Support of Motion, 22.) Plaintiff contends that
a further response to this request is warranted because the requested documents
are narrowly tailored and not burdensome or oppressive. (Sep. State. in
Support, 23-24.)
In opposition, GM contends that Plaintiff’s motion should be
denied because GM has already agreed to produce “its Warranty Policy &
Procedure Manual and the policies and procedures used to evaluate lemon law
claims and repurchase requests.” (Separate Statement in Support of Opposition, 4-5,
9-12.) GM further contends the “discovery requests in question pertain to
documents that relate to other vehicles and other warranty claims, which
necessarily say nothing about Plaintiff’s vehicle and are not relevant to this
litigation.” (Id.) The court agrees.
The court agrees with GM that the request is overbroad and
ambiguous as GM has already agreed to produce warranty documents, lemon law
policies and procedures, and repurchase request documents, and as the request
seeks information regarding GM’s policies for all Chevy vehicles. Thus,
Plaintiff’s request is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of
admissible evidence regarding Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants breached their
warranties to Plaintiff.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to
request 39.
No. 40: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe,
refer, or relate to YOUR rules, policies, or procedures in 2018 regarding
requiring a consumer in California to sign a release agreement upon YOU
refunding the purchase price or a replacement of a motor vehicle manufactured
or distributed by YOU.
GM objected to this request on the grounds that it is vague,
overbroad, burdensome and on the grounds that it sought documents not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
(Separate Statement in Support of Motion, 25-26.) GM additionally objected to
this request to the extent it sought confidential and/or proprietary documents involving
trade secret information. (Id.)
GM’s response to request 40 is almost identical to its
response to request 39. Similarly, Plaintiff contends that a response to
request 40 is warranted for the same reasons as with regard to request 39.
Because the court agrees with GM that an order compelling further response is
not warranted as to request 39, the court now finds that an order compelling
further response here is also not warranted as to request 40.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to
request 40.
Sanctions
Plaintiff also requests sanctions of $2,685.00 against GM
alongside this motion to compel further responses, pursuant to CCP section
2031.310. As this court has denied Plaintiff’s motion for further responses,
Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is also denied.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for
sanctions is also denied. GM is to give notice.