Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV29841, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV29841 Hearing Date: April 27, 2023 Dept: 61
Plaintiff
Milton Carlos Aceves’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Reqeusts for
Production of Documents, Set One, from General Motors, LLC is GRANTED.
Sanctions are awarded against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $2,004.15.
I.
MOTIONS
TO COMPEL FURTHER
“A party may demand
that any other party produce . . . a document that is in the possession,
custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2031.010(b).) The demanding party may move for an order compelling further
response to the demand 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, or (3) an objection in the
response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) “The
motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the
discovery sought by the demand,” and “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a
meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.310(b).)
A motion to compel
a further response to an inspection demand must set forth specific facts
showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland
v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Unless there is a
legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is
met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th
443, 444.) Once the moving party demonstrates good cause for the discovery, the
burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully
respond to the inspection demand. (Coy v Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d
210, 220.)
Plaintiff Milton
Carlos Aceves (Plaintiffs) seeks a further response to Requests for Production
No. 13–16 and 34–35. Requests No. 13–16 seek documents evidencing repurchases
or complaints by owners of vehicles of the same year make and model concerning
defects alleged for the subject vehicle in this case. (Separate Statement at
pp. 2–9.) Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant) responded to these requests
with objections based on overbreadth and relevance. (Ibid.) Requests No.
34 and 35 sought technical service bulletins (TSBs) and recalls issued for
vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. (Separate
Statement at pp. 10–12.) Defendant objected based on overbreadth and trade
secrecy, and further stated that it would produce a list of TSBs for Plaintiff
to select from, and further contended that the subject vehicle had no record of
required field actions, including recalls. (Separate Statement at pp. 10–13.)
Defendant argues
that Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith before bringing this
motion. (Opposition at pp. 3–4.) Plaintiff’s motion reveals that Plaintiff sent
a meet-and-confer letter concerning the discovery at issue before filing this
motion, to which Defendant did not respond. (Yashar Decl. Exh. 3.) This effort
was adequate to precede the present motion.
Defendant further
contends that Plaintiff has not established good cause for the requests, that
the requests seek documents unrelated to Plaintiff’s vehicle, and that it
intends to produce partial responsive documents as to Requests No. 34 and 35,
which relate to TSBs and recalls. (Opposition at pp. 4–7.)
Defendant’s
arguments are unpersuasive, as the requests concerning vehicles of the same
year, make, and model are supported by good cause. To succeed on a claim
brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“the Act”), the plaintiff
bears the burden of proving several elements, including nonconformity of a
vehicle that substantially impaired its use, value, or safety, presentation of
a vehicle to a manufacturer or authorized representative for repair, and
failure to repair the defect after a reasonable number of attempts. (Oregel v. Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc. (“Oregel”) (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.)
A buyer may be entitled to a civil penalty of up to two
times the actual damages upon a showing that the manufacturer willfully failed
to abide by any of its obligations under the Act. (Civ. Code § 1794, subd.
(c).) Evidence that a defendant “adopted internal policies that erected hidden
obstacles to the ability of an unwary consumer to obtain redress under the
Act,” is relevant to a determination of “willfulness” in relation to prayers
for the civil penalty. (Oregel, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 1105.)
Because the Song-Beverly Act itself allows for the
imposition of penalties for “willful” violations, this means discovery in a
lemon law case may encompass a manufacturer’s knowledge of a given defect at
the time the plaintiff’s car is presented for repurchase. . (Civ. Code § 1794,
subd. (c).) Thus discovery into that manufacturer’s knowledge of other vehicles
with similar defects may be permissible.
There is case authority for this proposition. The court in Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009)
174 Cal.App.4th 967, 993–994, held that Bentley’s failure to turn over customer
complaints regarding defects on other Bentleys to support the plaintiff’s claim
under the Song-Beverly Act was an abuse of discovery so flagrant that the trial
court abused its discretion by not
imposing terminating sanctions. Other cases have embraced a evidentiary rule
similar to that only implicit in Doppes.
In Donlen v. Ford Motor Company
(2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, the trial court allowed an expert to testify that a
particular transmission was defective
because he had heard from “others” that the same transmission in “other
vehicle[s]” was “problematic.” The Court of Appeal held that the “other
vehicle” testimony was properly “limited to the transmission model Ford installed
in plaintiff’s truck and other vehicles.”
(Id. at p. 154.) The court held that “[s]uch evidence
certainly was probative and not unduly prejudicial.” (Ibid.)
And in another case, Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th
334, 347, the court held that a manufacturer’s internal emails concerning a
mechanical defect in a lemon law case were relevant to show that the
manufacturer “intentionally chose not to honor the express warranty,” and thus
merited civil penalties.
Defendant argues that its records reveal only a limited
number of field actions related to the subject vehicle, and contends that it
has produced copies of all field action bulletins. (Opposition at p. 7.)
However, this differs from its response to Request No. 35, which stated that there
was “no record” of field actions, and which promised no compliance at all.
(Separate Statement at pp. 12–13.)
Defendant finally argues that Plaintiff impermissibly seeks
trade-secret material concerning its internal investigations of car components and
warranty policies and procedures. (Opposition at pp. 7–9.) Defendant also
argues that the requests may include personally identifying information for
Defendant’s consumers. (Ibid.) Defendant may indeed redact consumer
identifying information. However, Defendant’s trade secrets offer no persuasive
basis to deny Plaintiff’s request for relevant discovery, where any
confidential materials may be adequately preserved by the entry of an
appropriate protective order.
The motion is therefore GRANTED as to the requests for
production.
I.
SANCTIONS
Statute provides that the court shall impose sanctions upon
a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response
to interrogatories or requests for production of documents, absent substantial
justification otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310,
subd. (h).)
Plaintiffs seek sanctions in
the amount of $2,004.15, representing 4.5 hours of attorney work at $425 per
hour, plus $91.65 in filing fees. (Yashar Decl. ¶¶ 15–16.)
Sanctions are awarded against
Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $2,004.15.