Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV13045, Date: 2024-02-22 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.

This is lemon law action arising from Plaintiff Dominguez’s purchase of a 2017 Chevrolet Silverado manufactured/distributed by Defendant GM. Plaintiff Dominguez filed a Complaint against Defendant GM and DOES 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for: (1) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2, subdivision (d); (2) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2, subdivision (b); (3) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty – Civil Code Sections 1791.2, subdivision (a) and 1794; and (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability – Civil Code Sections 1791.1 and 1794.

Plaintiff Dominguez filed this instant motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents, set one. Defendant GM filed an opposition. Plaintiff Dominguez filed a reply.

The motion to compel further responses must be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) The Court finds that Plaintiff Dominguez sufficiently met and conferred with Defendant GM on this matter prior to bringing forth this instant motion.

A party may file a motion to compel further production if it concludes that the “statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,” a “representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,” and “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) The motion must be accompanied by a separate statement, unless no response has been provided to the request for discovery or where the court has allowed the moving party to submit in place a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.1345(a)(2) and (3), 3.1345(b).) The separate statement must provide “all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.1345(c).)

To prevail, the moving party must first offer specific facts demonstrating “good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)¿¿

The court must impose sanctions on a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make imposing a sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) “[A]bsent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.” (Id., § 2031.310, subd. (j)(1).)

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

Plaintiff Dominguez moves to strike Defendant GM’s objections and compel further responses to request for production of documents, set one Nos. 16-21 (the “Requests”). Plaintiff Dominguez contends Defendant GM has failed to provide adequate responses to the Requests, which seek documents directly relevant to his claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Specifically, Plaintiff Dominguez contends the Requests seek documents relating to Defendant GM’s internal investigation and analysis of the defects plaguing his vehicle and establishing that Defendant GM previously knew of such defects but nevertheless failed to repurchase the vehicle.

Furthermore, Plaintiff Dominguez argues Defendant GM’s responses lodged boilerplate objections and utterly non-responsive statements necessitating further responses. Moreover, Plaintiff Dominguez asserts that to date, Defendant GM has failed to provide any emails or search protocol, in contravention of its obligations under the Discovery Act. Plaintiff Dominguez also argues courts routinely compel production of documents similar to those requested here. To support this argument Plaintiff Dominguez cites to Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973, 978-979, 986, and Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143-144, 153.

In Opposition, Defendant GM argues it has already supplemented its document production with some of the information sought in this motion, pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order. Specifically, Defendant GM contends it has produced: (1) GM’s Global Warranty History Reports for Plaintiff’s Silverado, including that vehicle’s Transaction History documenting all the warranty repairs for which GM paid; (2) the Vehicle Summary and Repair Order Details for Plaintiff’s Silverado reflecting the amounts paid for warranty repairs; (3) the 2017 Chevrolet Limited Warranty and Owner Assistance Information (i.e., the document containing the warranty at issue); (4) BARS Invoice reflecting the components included in Plaintiff’s Silverado at the time of delivery and the corresponding MSRP value; (5) copies of any bulletins for all field actions, including recalls, applicable to the 2017 Chevrolet Silverado; (6) the Owner’s Manual for the 2017 Chevrolet Silverado; (7) product brochures for the 2017 Chevrolet Silverado; (8) information service bulletins (“ISBs”) and technical service bulletins (“TSBs”) for the 2017 Chevrolet Silverado, as well as specific bulletins; (9) Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual and its policies and procedures used to evaluate lemon law claims and repurchase requests made under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act during the relevant time period; and (10) information regarding other customer complaints within GM’s ESI database that are substantially similar to Plaintiff’s complaint(s) concerning the alleged “ENGINE DEFECT” – referenced in Plaintiff’s Requests – for vehicles purchased in California of the same year, make and model as the Subject Vehicle.

Defendant GM further argues Plaintiff Dominguez does not need documents about other vehicles because they are irrelevant to the pending claims concerning breach of warranty. Moreover, Defendant GM contends the Requests impermissibly put the onus on Defendant GM to determine the scope of the so-called non-conformities that Plaintiff Dominguez has alleged and this issue is not ripe. Defendant GM also argues the Requests are facially overbroad and Plaintiff Dominguez does not need whatever materials may be responsive to the Requests to sustain his burden of proof in this breach of warranty case. Defendant GM then contends the cases cited in the moving papers are inapposite because neither Doppes nor Donlen address discovery. (Opp’n at p. 6:11-16.) Additionally, Defendant GM argues request No. 18 is overbroad and beyond the claims and defenses of this instant matter because Plaintiff Dominguez does not need all recalls, technical service bulletins, or special service messages. Defendant GM contends Plaintiff Dominguez has refused to narrow the scope of the Requests to information relevant to this instant matter and none of the information sought could possibly shed light on whether Plaintiff Dominguez’s vehicle was made to conform to Defendant GM’s warranty within a reasonable number of repair attempts.

Finally, Defendant GM argues Plaintiff Dominguez’s requests impermissibly seek trade secret material and other protected information. Defendant GM asserts documents with details about engineering, warranty, and root cause analyses, engineering and manufacturing specifications and testing, component or product improvement, and costs and financial forecasts are often discussed in internal communications, meeting notices and minutes, and presentation materials. (Lu Decl., ¶¶ 14, 38). Defendant GM further asserts documents Plaintiff Dominguez seeks may relate to and contain confidential communications between GM employees and GM’s suppliers and/or sub-suppliers concerning technical, mechanical, and commercial issues and analyses. (Id., ¶ 38.) Defendant GM then asserts some of the documents Plaintiff requests may include personally identifiable information. (Id., ¶ 33.)

In reply, Plaintiff Dominguez argues he has demonstrated good cause for the requested discovery because Defendant GM failed to repurchase the defective vehicle, denied liability in its Answer, and in its Responses to Plaintiff Dominguez’s request for admission. Plaintiff Dominguez reiterates these Requests are highly relevant to this present case. Furthermore, Plaintiff Dominguez argues Defendant GM’s claims that the Requests are overbroad are misleading and unsupported by the facts. Plaintiff Dominguez contends he has narrowly tailored the Requests to documents concerning only Engine defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as his vehicle. Moreover, Plaintiff Dominguez argues there is no burden involved in producing the documents. Last, Plaintiff Dominguez asserts Defendant GM’s claims of trade secret and confidentiality are unsubstantiated and moot due to the executed protective order.

Here, the Court finds that Defendant GM’s objections to Plaintiff Dominguez’s request for production off documents, set one Nos. 16-21 require further response. First, Plaintiff Dominguez’s requests are narrowly tailored as they request documents concerning the Engine Defects in vehicle of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff Dominguez’s vehicle. Secondly, these are not documents easily accessible to Plaintiff Dominguez and are relevant to him proving his claims against Defendant GM under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. Lastly, to the extent that Defendant GM claims certain documents may contain trade secret, confidential, and/or personally identifiable information, these requests are subject to the protective order.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Alden Javier Dominguez’s motion to further responses to request for production of documents, set one Nos. 16-21.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court