Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2022-00018269-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 07, 2024

03/08/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00018269-CU-BC-CTL KRYNICKI VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is granted in part.

Before turning to specific production requests, the Court generally addresses Defendant's objections.

The Court agrees that some of the requests for production are overbroad, and consequently unduly burdensome, as to the time periods identified. As Song-Beverly is limited to the alleged failure to repurchase the subject vehicle, documents created after the lawsuit was filed are irrelevant. Therefore, all discovery requests are limited to the time before May 13, 2022. As to privilege, Defendant is required to submit a code compliant privilege log for any responsive documents withheld on the basis of privilege.

All other objections are overruled for supplemental responses. Finally, the Court grants Defendant's request that a protective order be issued prior to the supplemental production.

Defendant's responses stated it complied with these RFP Nos. 4, 8, 9, 11 and 12 in part. The Court finds that the information requested is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and supplemental responses are ordered.

The Court orders supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 17-27, 31, 34 and 35. However, these requests are limited to the documents, policies, practices, rules and training materials in effect from May 30, 2020 (the vehicle purchase date) to May 13, 2022. The Court also orders a supplemental response to RFP No. 33, limited to complaints received before May 13, 2022.

The Court denies Plaintiff's request for supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 16, 28-30, 32, 36 and 37.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding an appropriate protective order and submit a stipulated protective order within fourteen days. Defendant's supplemental responses are due seven (7) days after the Court signs the protective order. If no agreement can be reached, the parties are directed to schedule an ex parte with the Court.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2996701  3