Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV37495, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37495    Hearing Date: August 29, 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”) that was manufactured by Defendant.  The complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges four causes of action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

On June 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to the Requests for Production (“RFPs”), Set 1 that were served on Defendant (the “Motion”). 

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

            As an initial matter, 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.)

Plaintiff served Defendant with the RFPs on March 23, 2023.  (Declaration of Nadia Yashar (“Yashar Decl.”) ¶ 4, Exhibit 1.)  Defendant provided responses on April 25, 2023.  (Yashar Decl. ¶ 6, Exhibit 2.) 

The RFPs seek documents concerning the Vehicle; documents concerning defects in vehicles with the same make, year, and model as the Vehicle; and documents regarding Technical Service Bulletins (“TSBs”) and recalls related to the Vehicle.  (See Yashar Decl. ¶ 5.)  The concurrently filed Separate Statement sets forth Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the inadequacy of certain of Defendant’s responses.  Plaintiff argues that the RFPs are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence, particularly about Defendant’s knowledge of defects in the Vehicle and other automobiles of the same year and model. 

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, and model of the Vehicle; and

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

Defendant’s supplemental responses are to be provided within 20 days of the date of this order.

Monetary Sanctions

            Plaintiff requests $2,004.15 in monetary sanctions in connection with the Motion.  This amount represents: (1) two hours drafting the moving papers at a rate of $425 per hour; (2) an anticipated hour reviewing the opposition papers and drafting reply papers; (3) an anticipated 1.5 hours attending the hearing; and (4) a filing fee of $61.65.  (Yashar Decl. ¶¶ 15-16.)

            The Court exercises its discretion and awards Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the total reasonable amount of $911.65, which represents two hours preparing the Motion at a rate of $425 per hour and the $61.65 filing fee.  (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.)  Defendant and counsel are jointly responsible for paying this amount within 20 days of the date of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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 29th day of August 2023