Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

CATALINA CHACON,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,

Defendant. Case No.: 21STCV29447

PLAINITFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S DISCOVERY ORDER 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s Discovery Order is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

Defendant must serve verified responses and supplemental responses to No. 22, 26, 27 and 44 within 10 days after the date of this order.  

The Court imposes sanctions in the amount of $3,000 jointly and severally against Defendant and Defendant’s Counsel of Record. Sanctions are payable within 10 days after the date of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law case. Plaintiff alleges that in July 2013, she entered into an agreement with Defendant to purchase a 2012 Chevrolet Sonic vehicle which included an express written warranty. During the warranty period, the vehicle had or developed defects which Defendant could not repair after a reasonable number of opportunities. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On April 27, 2023, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference regarding Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one.

On September 19, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel further.

On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel Defendant’s compliance with the Court’s September 19, 2023 order.

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant’s compliance with the Court’s September 19, 2023 order compelling Defendant to produce further responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production.

If, after a court grants a motion to compel responses to requests for production, a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response a court may make those orders that are just, including issue, evidence, terminating, or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.300 (c).)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that after the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel further, Defendant served unverified supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production. (Randolph Decl., ¶5.) Defendant’s responses stated that Defendant “complied in whole” without affirming that Defendant made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with the demand. (Id., ¶6.) Defendant has not produced any documentation or internal analysis regarding the disputed defects as the Court ordered. (Id., ¶7.) The information Plaintiff believes is missing may be found in Defendant’s warranty database, quality with information and knowledge database, GM problem resolution tracking system database, the warranty database, 573 reports, big 4 reports, executive field action decision committee reports, and red x problem solving data. (Id., ¶9.)

Defendant’s counsel alleges that she read the court’s order to deny requests 1, 7, 20, 23-25, and 46-51. (Gavrilescu Decl., ¶3.) Defendant’s supplemental responses included its warranty policy and procedure documents, internal investigation documents, and spreadsheets detailing other customer complaints. (Id., ¶4.) The responses also stated that it “complied in whole and produced all documents in its possession, custody, or control. (Randolph Decl., Exh. 2.)

Plaintiff’s counsel alleges on reply that the documents Defendant produced in its response cannot be responsive because the requests seek different types of documents, including emails, which were not included in the documents produced. (Randolph Reply Decl., ¶9.)

Plaintiff appears to argue that Defendant is continuing to withhold internal communications about the disputed defects. However, Defendant’s supplemental responses state that Defendant has produced all documents in its possession that are responsive to the requests. Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.210 requires that the party responding to requests for production must state that the party will comply, lacks the ability to comply, or is not complying due to stated objections. Only if a party lacks the ability to comply must there be a statement that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made. (CCP Section 2031.230). Here, Defendant’s responses are sufficient to state it has complied with Plaintiff’s requests. 

With respect to RFPs No. 22, 26, 27 and 44, Defendant provided no supplemental responses. In the September Order, the Court ordered that with respect to these requests and others, Defendant was to produce material relating to vehicles of the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle, but was not required to search email. 

In addition to not responding to these requests, Defendant failed to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production. Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.) Here, Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s September 19, 2023 order by failing to serve verified responses. 

With respect to sanctions, the Court may award sanctions under Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.300 (c) because Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s order compelling its responses to requests for production. However, Plaintiff’s request for $200 a day in sanctions is excessive. The Court awards Plaintiff $3,000 in sanctions.

______________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court