Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

MIHAELA DUCU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,

Defendant. Case No.: 22STCV32182

PLAINITFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS 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 10 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 10 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 a lemon law case. Plaintiffs allege that in 2022, Plaintiffs entered into a warranty contract with Defendant General Motors to purchase a 2022 Chevrolet Bolt vehicle which included an express written warranty. The vehicle was delivered with defects which Defendant could not repair after a reasonable number of opportunities. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On September 30, 2022, Plaintiffs Mihaela Ducu and Andrei Gaina filed their Complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC.

On November 4, 2022, Defendant Answered.

On July 27, 2023, the parties participated in an informal discovery conference (“IDC”).

On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses to requests for production.

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiffs move for an order compelling Defendant’s further responses to their RPDs.

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; or

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, Plaintiffs’ counsel testifies that she served RPDs on Defendant on December 21, 2022. (Yashar Decl., ¶4.) On February 2, 2023, Defendant served responses that were unresponsive, evasive, incomplete, and non-compliant. (Id., ¶6.) Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant failed to provide complete responses to requests 13-16 and 34-45.

Meet and Confer

Defendant first argues that Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied because Plaintiff failed to properly meet and confer in good faith. A motion to compel further must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration which “state[s] facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) 

Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer and that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter pertaining to the responses was not a good faith effort to resolve their discovery disputes.

Plaintiffs’ counsel testifies that she sent a meet and confer letter to discuss the deficient responses on February 15, 2023. (Yashar Decl., ¶7.) Defendant did not respond to this letter. (Id., ¶8.) Thereafter, the parties participated in IDC and could not resolve this dispute. (Id.) 

Because Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ meet and confer letter and the parties thereafter participated in IDC, the Court finds that the parties sufficiently met and conferred prior to the filing of this motion.

The Responses

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: 

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

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

6. 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.) 

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 alleged defects.  However, the motion lists: (1) difficulties with the vehicle coming to a complete stop and (2) the draining of the vehicle’s battery at an accelerated rate. These will be the defects for the purposes of providing these documents. 

DATED:  January 10, 2024

______________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court