Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV05807, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 21STCV05807    Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”)

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises out of the purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle (the “Vehicle”) manufactured by Defendant.  Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subd. (d); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subd. (b); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subd. (a)(3); and (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to her Requests for Production (RFPs), Set One (the “Motion”). 

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

            The Court finds that the meet and confer requirement has been met.

Legal Standard

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2017.010, unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (CCP § 2017.010.)  For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.”  (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (CCP § 2031.310, subd. (c).)  A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.  (See CCP § 2031.310 subd. (b)(1).)  The good cause requirement is met if the proponent shows that there exists “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”  (Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)  The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.020, subd. (a).)  Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of: (1) the propounding party’s subjective intent to create burden; or (2) the amount of time and effort it would take to actually respond.  (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.)  Where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face, no such evidence is necessary.  (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)  Trial courts are vested with “wide discretion” to allow or prohibit discovery.  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

The RFPs seek documents that fall into four categories: (1) documents concerning the Vehicle; (2) documents concerning defects in vehicles with the same make, model and model year as the Vehicle, including internal investigations, emails and other ESI; (3) TSBs, campaigns, recalls and communications with the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency (“NHTSA”); and (4) Defendant’s lemon law policies and procedures.  The Motion contends that these documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims because they seek information concerning whether the Vehicle had a defect, whether it could be repaired, whether Defendant sufficiently supplied repair facilities with information and parts to complete repairs repair facilities, whether Defendant knew it could not repair the Vehicle, and whether Defendant knew that the Vehicle was defective.  (See Declaration of Rebecca E. Neubauer (“Neubauer Decl.”) ¶¶ 18.)

In its opposition (the “Opposition”), Defendant indicates that it sent Plaintiff supplemental documents and verifications on February 6, 2023 and February 7, 2023, and argues that it should not have to produce further documents, particularly documents related to other vehicles, because the RFPs are overly broad.  (See Declaration of Ryan Kay (“Kay Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-6, A.) 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause that the RFPs seek documents relevant to the action, including the documents containing information about alleged defects in other vehicles, because such information may be probative of whether Defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act.  To the extent that such documents have not yet been produced, the Court GRANTS the Motion and orders Defendant to provide supplemental responses that include the following documents:

1.     Warranty policy and procedure manuals or similar policies or claim handling procedures that Defendant published from the date the Vehicle was purchased to the date the lawsuit was filed;

2.     Written statements of policy and/or procedures Defendant used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase or replacement for lemon law claims from the date the Vehicle was purchased to the date the lawsuit was filed;

3.     A list or compilation of customer complaints in Defendant’s electronically stored info database that are substantially similar to the alleged defects claimed by Plaintiff (same nature of reported symptom, malfunction, dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem, other than routine or scheduled maintenance items), in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the Vehicle.  This list or compilation shall include the VIN, date of repair visit, dealership or other reporting location, and text of other customers’ reported complaints, but shall not include customer names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, or other personal identifying information;

4.     TSBs and recall notices for vehicles purchased or leased in CA for same year make model of the Vehicle; and

5.     Copies of any repair instruction bulletin or diagnostic/repair procedure identified in any of the repair order.

Defendant is also ordered to provide verified,  Code-compliant statements of compliance.  These responses are to be produced within 20 days of this order.

Monetary Sanctions

            Plaintiff requests $5,940 in sanctions in connection to the Motion.  (Neubauer Decl. ¶ 50.)  This amount represents 12 hours of work at a rate of $495 per hour.  (Id.)  The Court exercises its discretion and awards Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the amount of $990, which represents two hours of work at a rate of $495 per hour.  (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.)  Defendant is to pay this amount within 20 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.  If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person.  The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.  This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

         Dated this 21st day of March 2023