Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

ROGELIO VALENZUELA SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,

Defendant. Case No.: 22STCV33471

PLAINTIFF’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 attorney client or work product 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 given the information provided at the IDC. 

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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law case. Plaintiffs allege that in 2019, he entered into a warranty contract with Defendant General Motors to purchase a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 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 October 30, 2023, Plaintiff Rogelio Valenzuela Sanchez filed his Complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC.

On November 17, 2022, Defendant answered.

On July 25, 2023, the parties participated in an informal discovery conference (“IDC”).

On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses to requests for production.

On March 7, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition.

On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff moves 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.) 

Meet and Confer

Defendant first argues that Plaintiff’s 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, Plaintiffs’ counsel testifies that he served RPDs on Defendant on February 23, 2023. (Manno Decl., ¶14.) On March 23, 2023, Defendant served responses. (Id., ¶15.) The parties met and conferred over the responses in April 2023, stipulated to a protective order, and participated in IDC in July 2023. (Id., ¶¶16-28.) Defendant served supplemental responses on September 11, 2023. (Id.) The supplemental responses did not include internal investigation documents and engineering emails. (Id., ¶29.) Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter regarding the supplemental responses. (Id.) Defendant refused to respond to Plaintiff’s concerns that the documents produced did not apply to the subject vehicle or defect. (Id., ¶30.) 

Because the parties met and conferred regarding the supplemental responses and had previously participated in IDC, the Court finds the parties sufficiently met and conferred.

The Responses

Here, Plaintiff seeks further responses to RPD numbers 16, 19-22, 25-27, and request number 39 relating to Defendant’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, procedures, and practices. The parties do not dispute that Defendant produced in its supplemental responses individual recalls, customer complaints, organizational charts, design failure analyses, lists of work orders without the actual work orders, root cause analyses for an arcing generator defect, a list of other lemon law lawsuits, a list of repurchases, lists of safety investigation listings, Technical Service Bulletins, and temporary work orders.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has not produced engineering emails, engineering memorandum, or memorandum work orders.  Additionally, Defendant produced documents for a different year than that of the subject vehicle, or documents pertaining to defect symptoms completely different than those listed by Plaintiff in his defect definition.

Although Plaintiff argues some of the documents are for vehicles of a different year than Plaintiff’s vehicle, Plaintiff’s Complaint states the subject vehicle was a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado. Defendant alleges it produced materials related to a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado. Plaintiff’s moving papers state the vehicle was from 2021. It appears Defendant produced documents for vehicles of the correct year, 2019.

Defendant first argues that Plaintiff’s requests are overbroad because Plaintiff does not need information about other vehicles. Information about whether a violation of the Song Beverly Act was willful is relevant to whether a defendant is liable for a civil penalty. (Oregel¿v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.¿(2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094.) Here, information about other vehicles is relevant to whether Defendant was aware of defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle and willfully refused to repurchase the vehicle. Defendant’s argument with respect to relevance is without merit.

Defendant next argues that Plaintiff impermissibly asks Defendant to determine the scope of the alleged defects. However, the original RPDs propounded on Defendant define the Powertrain Defect as defects which result in symptoms including, but not limited to: the vehicle hesitating to drive when shifting in reverse, the illumination of a malfunction light, shaking of the vehicle when driving, coolant leaking from the water pump, premature replacement of the water pump, leaking of indicator #7, any other concern identified in Plaintiff’s vehicle. (Manno Decl., Exh. 7.) The original RPDs also defined the Electrical Defect. Plaintiff provided an adequate definition of his vehicle’s specific defects. It appears Defendant produced documents having to do with an arcing generator defect. This defect does not fit Plaintiff’s definition of Powertrain Defect. Defendant must produce documents relevant to defects with Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Finally, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s requests seek trade secret material. However, Defendant failed to adequately substantiate that contention. Additionally, the parties have already stipulated to a protective order. 

For the reasons above, Defendant is ordered to produce documents as follows:

1. Any internal analysis or investigation regarding defects as defined in the RPDs in vehicles for the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. This includes Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins. Defendant is not required to do a search of emails.

2. Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

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

4. All customer complaints relating to defects as defined in the RPDs in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle.

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

Defendant is further ordered to provide a verified response as follows:

1. With respect to item #1, above Defendant must indicate that it has produced all responsive documents, except for emails. Defendant must indicate the responsive documents by bates number.

2. With respect to items #2 through #5 above, Defendant must indicate that it has produced all responsive documents. Defendant must indicate the responsive documents by bates number. 

To the extent that Defendant is asserting attorney client or work product privilege, Defendant must so state and provide a privilege log.

DATED:  March 20, 2024

______________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court