Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 22CHCV01389, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CHCV01389 Hearing Date: April 23, 2024 Dept: F43
Dept. F43
Date: 4-23-24
Case #22CHCV01389,
Araceli Miceli, et al. vs. General Motors, LLC
Trial Date: 9-3-24
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTIN
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff
Araceli and Anthony Miceli
RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendant General Motors, LLC
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Defendant’s
further responses to certain requests for production
RULING:
Motion to compel further responses is denied.
SUMMARY OF
ACTION
This action
arises from Plaintiffs Araceli and Anthony Miceli’s (Plaintiffs) purchase of an
allegedly defective 2021 Chevrolet Silverado. On December 14, 2022, Plaintiffs
filed a Complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant) for
violations of the Song-Beverly Act.
Defendant’s
responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for production were allegedly due on July 27,
2023. On August 10, 2023, Defendant served its unverified responses to
Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production. Verification was received on August 31,
2023. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s responses were untimely and filled with
improper boilerplate objections.
On August 25, 2023,
Plaintiffs sent Defendant a meet and confer letter regarding the alleged
deficiencies with Defendant’s responses. Plaintiffs sent a second meet and
confer letter on September 18, 2023. On September 27, 2023, Defendant responded
to Plaintiffs’ letter and refused to supplement its responses.
On October 17,
2023, Plaintiffs filed this motion to compel further responses to request for
production of documents. The specific responses that Plaintiffs allege are
deficient are Defendant’s Responses to RFP Nos. 33 and 34. Those requests and
responses read as follows:
Request for
Production No. 33:
All DOCUMENTS which evidence or
describe the numbers of owners 2021 Chevrolet Silverado vehicles who have
complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which
Plaintiffs presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair
facility for repair.
Response to
Request for Production No. 33:
GM objects to this Request on
grounds the terms “evidence or describe” and
“conditions, defects, or nonconformities” are vague and ambiguous. GM also
objects to this Request on grounds that it improperly assumes that there are
defects in 2019 [sic] CHEVROLET SILVERADO VEHICLES, generally. GM also objects
to this Request on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and
not relevant to the subject matter of this action or reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited to the
SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request on
grounds it is 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. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and
this Request also violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiffs
are entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely
unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also
objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and
trade secret information. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it
seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product
doctrine. No documents will be produced.
Request for
Production No. 34:
All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer,
or relate to all Technical Service Bulletins (“TSBs”) which have been issued
for 2021 Chevrolet Silverado vehicles, including, but not limited to, complete
copies of all such Technical Service Bulletins that involve any part,
component, sub-component, system, assembly, or sub-assembly for which the
SUBJECT VEHICLE was subject to one or more repair attempts as reflected in YOUR
Warranty Claim Records, or in the repair orders produced during discovery in
this case
Response to
Request for Production No. 34:
GM objects to this Request on
grounds the terms “evidence, refer, or relate to” are vague and ambiguous. GM
also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome,
oppressive, and not relevant to the subject matter of this action or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not
limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this
Request on grounds it is 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. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and
this Request also violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiffs
are entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely
unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also
objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and
trade secret information in the form of GM’s internal policies and procedures.
GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected
by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.
Subject
to and without waiving these objections, GM will comply in part and produce the
following documents in its possession, custody and control: a list of Technical
Service Bulletins (“TSBs”) for vehicles of the same year, make and model as the
SUBJECT VEHICLE. After it has produced a list of TSBs, GM will – at Plaintiffs’
request – search for and produce, if located, copies of a reasonable number of
TSBs, if any, that Plaintiffs have identified as relevant to the conditions
alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint.
In their
motion, Plaintiffs argue that these responses were untimely and therefore
Defendant waived all objections to the requests. Next, Plaintiff argues that
Defendant’s refusal to provide meaningful, substantive responses evinces a lack
of good faith. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that their requests are relevant to
their Song-Beverly claims.
In opposition,
Defendant first argues that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently meet and confer
in good faith. Next, Defendant argues that the Court should sustain Defendant’s
well-founded objections on the basis that Defendant does not have to produce
information about similar occurrences of the defects in the same year, make,
and model vehicles; Defendant properly objected to Plaintiffs’ request for
technical service bulletins; and finally, Plaintiffs’ request impermissibly
seek trade secret material and other protected information.
Plaintiffs
argue in their reply that they have sufficiently met and conferred in good
faith. Next, Plaintiffs argue that an order compelling further response is
warranted because Plaintiffs established good cause for production and
Defendant failed to justify its objections.
ANALYSIS
The Discovery
Act allows “[a]ny party [to] obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying,
testing, or sampling documents . . . and electronically stored information in
the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (a).) The demanding party may designate the
documents sought “by reasonably particularizing each category of item.” (CCP §
2031.030(c)(1).) The responding party must then “respond separately to each
item or category of item” with an agreement to comply, representation of
inability to comply, or an objection. (CCP § 2031.210.) If the demanding party
deems that “(1) [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,” (2)
“[a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or
evasive.” (3) “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general,”
the demanding party may seek an order compelling code-complaint responses. (CCP
§ 2030.310(a).)
Plaintiffs
argue in their motion that they engaged in sufficient meet and confer by
sending the letters to Defendant. Defendant disputes the sufficiency of the
meet and confer efforts because Defendant states that it would have continued
discussing the possibility of supplementing its answers had Plaintiffs not
filed this motion. However, based on the parties’ moving papers, it appears
that further meet and confer would have been futile. The Court will address the
two requests for production at issue.
Next, CCP §
2031.240 states that two requirements must be satisfied for a responding party
to properly object to a demand. First, a party must “[i]dentify with
particularity any document, [or] tangible thing . . . to which an objection is
being made.” (CCP § 2031.240(b)(1).) Second, a party must “[s]et forth clearly
the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.” (CCP §
2031.240(b)(2).) Furthermore, a party who fails to serve timely responses to a
demand for inspection waives objections to the request. (CCP § 2031.300(a).)
That being said, a court may relieve a party from this waiver if a party has
subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with the Code.
(CCP § 2031.300(a)(1).)
Plaintiffs
claim that Defendant’s responses were untimely and should have been served by
July 27, 2023. However, nowhere in Plaintiffs’ motion do they indicate when
Plaintiffs propounded the discovery on Defendant. Without this information,
there is no way for the Court to determine whether Defendant’s responses were,
in fact, untimely. Therefore, the Court will consider the merit of Defendant’s
objections.
First, for
Request No. 34, subject to some objections, Defendant has agreed to produce a
list of technical service bulletins for vehicles of the same year, make, and
model, and then allow Plaintiffs to indicate from that list which specific
technical service bulletins they wish to obtain. This appears to be a
reasonable response and narrows the focus of the discovery request for both
parties. The Court will not compel a further response to this request unless
Defendant fails to produce the list of technical service bulletins.
As for Request
No. 33, the main question is whether it is relevant and likely to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. The Court agrees with Defendant that the
terms used in the request, “evidence or describe” and “conditions, defects, or
nonconformities,” are vague and ambiguous. Furthermore, this is a Song-Beverly
action specifically about the defects in Plaintiffs’ vehicle, not other
customers’ vehicles. The information about other customers’ vehicles is not
relevant to this action. No further responses to this request is necessary.
Plaintiffs’ motion
to compel further discovery responses is denied for Request Nos. 33 and 34.
ORDER
1. Plaintiffs’
motion to compel further responses is denied.