Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

KELLER LOGISTICS & CREATIVE LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,

Defendant. Case No.: 22STCV23543

PLAINITFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Request for Production, Set One is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Responsive documents and supplemental responses must be produced within 20 days after the date of this order. If any documents are withheld based on a claim of privilege, a privilege log must be produced. This privilege log must also be produced within 20 days after the date of this order. 

The Court declines to impose sanctions this time. However, this motion was avoidable by both sides. 

.Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for breaches of the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff alleges that in 2022, it purchased a 2022 GMC Yukon XL. Express warranties accompanied the sale and Defendant undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the vehicle or to compensate Plaintiff if there was a failure in the utility or performance of the vehicle. The vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects which Defendant failed to repair despite a reasonable number of attempts. Defendant failed to replace the vehicle or make restitution.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff Keller Logistics & Creative, LLC filed its Complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC.

On September 8, 2022, Defendant answered.

On July 27, 2023, Plaintiff participated in IDC and Defendant failed to appear.

On August 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses to request for production. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff moves for orders compelling Defendant’s further responses to RPDs 13-16 and 34-35.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, the Court may order a responding party to serve a further response to a request for production when the Court finds that any of the following apply: 

1. A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; 

2. A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. 

3. An objection in the response is without merit or too general. 

To prevail, the party moving for the order 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. Servs. 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.) 

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that she served RPDs on Defendant on November 8, 2022. (Yashar Decl., ¶4.) On December 28, 2022, Defendant provided incomplete responses. (Id., ¶6.) On January 27, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant a meet and confer letter about the incomplete responses. (Id., ¶7.) Defendant did not respond to the letter and thereafter failed to appear at IDC. (Id., ¶¶7-8.)

Defendant is ordered to produce documents as follows:

1. The “Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual” published by Defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the period of the date of purchase to the present.

2. Any internal analysis or investigation regarding defects alleged in plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle. This includes Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins. Defendant is not required to do a search of emails.

3. Any customer complaints relating to defects alleged in plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle.

4. All documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for the period of the date of purchase to the present.

5. Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

6. Communications with dealer, factory representative and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle.

7. Warranty claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the subject vehicle.

8. Purchase and/or lease contracts concerning the subject vehicle; and

9. Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

The Complaint lists no defects.  However, the motion lists: (1) rattling noise when starting the vehicle; (2) vehicle vibrations and (3) a loud noise coming from the exhaust. These will be the defects for the purposes of providing these documents. 

DATED:  December 13, 2023

______________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court