Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 22SMCV01712, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01712    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: O

.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiffs Juan Roman and Omar Garcia

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant General Motors LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiffs Juan Roman and Omar Garcia’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendant General Motors LLC and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 16-31, 33, 37-41 and 45-46 as detailed in this ruling.  The request for sanctions in the amount of $2,885 (7 hours motion and reply prep and hearing time @ $395/hr plus $60 filing fee) is DENIED.   

RFP Nos. 16-31, 33 and 45-46—Defendant GM has already made three rounds of responses and production in response to these RFPs.  However, GM should provide an index of the documents produced in response to specified Request.  Finally, GM should state under penalty of perjury that all responsive documents to these Requests have been produced. If GM cannot make such a statement, GM is ordered to provide further production of all responsive documents to these Requests. 

Request Nos. 37-41—These Requests seek documents regarding cars of the same year, make and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle.  They do not seek documents that pertain specifically to Plaintiff’s vehicle.  The Requests seek the following information regarding cars of the same make, model and year as Plaintiff’s vehicle:

Request No. 37—OBDII codes

Request No. 38—vehicle symptom codes

Request No. 39—vehicle component repair codes

Request No. 40—customer complaint codes from 2022 to present

Request No. 41—labor operation codes provided to authorized dealerships from 2022 to present

Plaintiff demonstrates good cause as to Requests 37-39 and 41.  Plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating good cause on a motion to compel further responses to Requests by making a fact-specific showing of relevance.  CCP §2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland v. Supr. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4^th 92, 98 (“Once good cause was shown, the burden shifted to Kirkland to justify his objection.”)  It is only after Plaintiff demonstrates good cause to the satisfaction of the Court that the burden shifts to GM to justify its objections.  This burden is no different in an action under the Song Beverly Act, and Plaintiff fails to cite any authority to the contrary.

Plaintiff makes a convincing case of good cause to compel production of documents relating to other customer complaints involving vehicles of the same make, model and year.  Such information would be relevant to Defendant’s knowledge of the particular defect in Plaintiff’s specific vehicle and its good faith or bad faith attempts at compliance with the Act.  Plaintiff establishes the relevance of these complaints Defendant’s alleged willful violation of the Song Beverly Act.  The nature of other complaints regarding the same vehicle type is also relevant to what constitutes a “reasonable” number of repair attempts. 

Plaintiff also establishes good cause as to Request Nos. 37-39 and 41, which seek documents regarding the meaning of specific repair codes.  Plaintiff explains in the Joint Statement that these codes are necessary to understand shorthand used in documents regarding defects in the type of vehicle that is the subject of this action.  Plaintiff also explains that the typical production in response to these Requests consists of two pages per request and are listed as appendices to some sort of manual.  Plaintiff therefore makes a fact-specific showing of relevance as to Request Nos. 37-39 and 41 and refutes the objection based on undue burden.

The burden therefore shifts to Defendant to justify its objections.  Defendant fails to satisfy this burden.  Defendant argues this general information pertaining to vehicles of the same make, model and year are irrelevant and unduly burdensome. As discussed above, Plaintiff makes a sufficient showing of relevance. 

Defendant fails to demonstrate that production in response to these Requests would be unduly burdensome.  Counsel Yaragchian’s declaration does not set forth specific facts regarding what production in response to these Requests would entail, or how production in response to these Requests would be unduly burdensome.  See Dec. of A. Yaragchian filed on 3-23-23,  ¶¶10-11 (detailing orders in other cases where court notes the burden such discovery imposes on the courts). “The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.”  West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Supr. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417 [15 Cal.Rptr. 119, 123–124 (discussing such objections asserted to interrogatories).