Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 23STCV05216, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05216    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: 61

Plaintiffs Tyler Pope and Marissa Modica’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production from Defendant General Motors, LLC is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

I.                MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER – PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

“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.)

Plaintiffs Tyler Pope and Marissa Modica (Plaintiffs) move for an order compelling further responses to Requests for Production No. 16–21 from Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant). These documents seek all documents relating to internal analysis of a defined electrical defect, and communications, notices, recalls,  regarding same. (Separate Statement.) Defendant responded only with objections to Requests No. 16, 17, and 19–21, and responded with a statement of partial compliance to Request No. 18, which sought technical service bulletins and recalls, by stating that it would produce a “reasonable number” of documents selected by Plaintiff from a list to be promulgated by Defendant. (Separate Statement at p. 20.) The crux of this motion thus concerns Plaintiff’s ability to seek information concerning other vehicles of the same year, make, and model, for the prosecution of this lemon law action.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to meet and confer prior to filing this motion. (Opposition at pp. 4–5.) The evidence belies this argument. The parties corresponded in detail concerning the requests at issue and Defendant’s objections thereto, and Plaintiff offered to narrow the categories of production and execute a protective order. (Motion Exhs. 7–11.) Defendant only agreed that a protective order would allow it to produce its warranty polices and procedures. (Motion Exh. 8.)

Defendant’s objection based on overbreadth are unpersuasive, as Plaintiffs may use evidence of other vehicles to pursue their Song Beverly claims. To succeed on a claim brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty 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.)

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 an 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.5^th 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. Thus Plaintiff is not limited to requests concerning the particular vehicle at issue.

Defendant next argues that the requests seek confidential trade secret information. (Opposition at pp. 9–10.) Defendant argues that disclosing documents related to internal analysis of the vehicular issues implicated in this case risks exposing sensitive information related to its vehicles’ engineering, manufacturing, and root cause analysis, which would cause competitive disadvantage to Defendant if such information was released to the public. (Opposition at pp. 9–10.) But Plaintiff has already offered to stipulate to a protective order in Defendant’s favor, and Defendant does not explain why the execution of such an order, as opposed to total nondisclosure, is insufficient to protect its interests. (Motion Exh. 11.)

The motion is therefore GRANTED.