Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 22SMCV02585, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02585    Hearing Date: April 18, 2024    Dept: O

  Case Name:  Castellanos v. GM, LLC

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS TO RFP (SET ONE)

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Guillermo Castellanos

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant General Motors, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff Guillermo Castellanos Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (SET ONE), Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 30, 32, 33, 35, 39, 40, 41, 48, 53, 55, 56, 65, 69, 70, 73, 75, 76, and 79 and Sanctions in the amount of $3,750.00 as to Defendant General Motors, LLC is GRANTED, IN PART.  GM is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff within 60 days of service of the signed order.

Counsel are ordered to further meet and confer pursuant to CCP § 2031.310. in person (or by phone or video) to prepare a proposed order to identify with more specificity the requested documents that GM has and will produce consistent with this order. Counsel for GM is to review and give to counsel for Plaintiff the similar orders the Court issued in other cases GM cases: Case nos.  22smcv02219 (Brown v GM 3-12-24), 22smcv01712 (Roman v GM 4-27-23) and 22smcv02644 Khanna v GM (10-26-2023).  If counsel are unable to agree to the form of the proposed order, they are ordered to file a joint statement identifying those objections to each parties proposed order and state the alternative terms they request the Court include in the order.  Such the proposed order and/or joint statement are to be filed by ___________________.

The hearing is CONTINUED to  ________________ for the Court’s review of the order.

REASONING

Plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating good cause on a motion to compel further responses to Requests by making a facts specific showing of relevance. (See Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310, subd., (b)(1); Kirkland v. Supr. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 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 has met its burden to show 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 GM’s knowledge of the particular defect in the plaintiff’s vehicle and its good faith or bad faith attempts at compliance with the Act. Plaintiff establishes the relevance of these complaints GM’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.

GM fails to demonstrate that production in response to these Requests would be unduly burdensome. Counsel’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. “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 [discussing such objections asserted to interrogatories].)  Further, GM fails to demonstrate that production in response to these Requests would include trade secret information or why such information could not be protected by a confidentiality protective order.

Defendant is ordered to serve further responses to request nos _______________________ in full compliance with CCP §§ 2031.220, 2031.230 and 2031.240 in ______ days.  Defendant’s objections, except for privilege are OVERRULED.  The parties are to submit a stipulated confidentiality protective order relating to any documents or information requested that GM believes are confidential and provide a supplemental response confirming those documents will be produced. Any other documents withheld based on privilege shall be sufficiently identified in a privilege log to be served with the supplemental response.

Request Nos. ______________________: These requests seek documents regarding the subject vehicle. The documents to be produced include: ____________________

Request Nos._______________________:  These Requests seek documents regarding cars of the same year, make and model as Plaintiff vehicle. The documents to be produced include: ______________________________

Request Nos._________________________:  seek documents concerning internal analysis or investigation by GM or on behalf of GM regarding the Defect at issue. The documents to be produced include:  __________________

Request Nos. _________   seek documents concerning internal knowledge, analysis, or investigation by GM or on behalf of GM regarding the Defect at issue. The documents to be produced include:  __________________.

Request No. ______  seeks customer complaints, claims, reported failures and warranty claims related to the Defect. The documents to be produced include:______________________