Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

ROGELIO VALENZUELA SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,

Defendant. Case No.: 23STCV14107

PLAINITFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.

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 2019, she purchased a 2018 GMC Terrain SLE 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 June 16, 2023, Plaintiff Laura Castaneda filed her Complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC.

On March 5, 2024, Defendant failed to appear for IDC.

On March 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories (SROGs).

On June 20, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition.

On June 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.

DISCUSSION 

Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.300, the Court may order a responding party to serve a further response to interrogatories when the Court finds that any of the following apply: (1) the answer to a particular interrogatory is incomplete or evasive, (2) the exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is improper or inadequate, or (3) that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. Such a motion “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040,” which “shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., sections 2016.040, 2030.300(b)(1).) 

Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.220 provides:

“(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.

(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”

Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.300, subdivision (d) authorizes a mandatory issuance of sanctions against “any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.300, subd. (d).) 

Here, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to SROG numbers 14, 20, 23, 25, 26, 39, 41, and 43.

SROG Nos. 14 and 20

14. IDENTIFY all PERSONS who performed warranty repairs upon the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 

Response:

GM objects to this Interrogatory on grounds the term “warranty repairs” is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Subject to and without waiving its objections, and pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, GM refers Plaintiff to the documents it has produced in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, particularly any Service Request Activity Report(s), the Global Warranty History Report for the SUBJECT VEHICLE, and any repair orders that GM may have obtained from GM-authorized dealerships who may have serviced, maintained, or repaired the SUBJECT VEHICLE. These documents identify the individuals and transactions, including dates and times, of which GM is familiar regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

20. IDENTIFY all PERSONS who inspected or tested the SUBJECT VEHICLE during the RELEVANT PERIOD.

GM incorporates and restates its Response to Special Interrogatory No. 18. 

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 

GM objects to this Interrogatory on grounds the terms “retain,” “inspection,” and “testing” are overbroad, vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information or documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving its objections, GM states that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was inspected and repaired by an authorized GM repair facility, not GM, as reflected on the Global Warranty History Report applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE produced by GM in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. GM also states that it has not inspected or repaired Plaintiff’s vehicle. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, GM refers Plaintiff to any incidentally obtained repair orders produced in its responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, which may contain the names of individuals who inspected and/or repaired the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Plaintiff’s complaint with respect to the responses provided is that Defendant should have provided identifying information for the various individuals mentioned in the documents previously produced, such as the Global Warranty History Report.

Plaintiff argues that this information is in the possession of Defendant’s authorized dealership and that therefore Defendant has the ability to obtain this information.

Defendant contends that it has no ability to obtain this information from the separate independent dealership.

The motion is denied in part and granted in part with respect to these two requests.

Plaintiff must provide Defendant GM with a list of the individuals by name or other identifying information about whom it requires further identifying information with a reference to the bates number of the document on which this individual is mentioned.

Defendant must then make a request to the dealership for this information. The Code provides that if a responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. Here, the dealership should have the requested information and Defendant is in a superior position to seek that information from the dealership. 

If the dealership refuses the request, Defendant must provide that refusal to Plaintiff.   

SROG No. 23

23. IDENTIFY all PERSONS who have knowledge of Plaintiffs’ notice(s) of DEFECT to YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23 

GM incorporates and restates its Response to Special Interrogatory No. 22. 

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22

GM objects to this Interrogatory on grounds the term “DEFECT” is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. GM also objects to this Interrogatory on grounds it improperly assumes that there is a “DEFECT” with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE, invades the province of the jury, and calls for a legal conclusion. GM further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information or documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving its objections, and pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, GM refers Plaintiff to the documents it has produced in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, particularly the Global Warranty History Report for the SUBJECT VEHICLE, any Service Request Activity Report(s) for the SUBJECT VEHICLE, and any repair orders that GM may have obtained from GM-authorized dealerships who may have serviced, maintained, or repaired the SUBJECT VEHICLE. These documents identify the individuals and transactions, including dates and times, of which GM is familiar regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

This is granted in part and denied in part for the same reasons as with the previous requests.

The same procedure should be followed here as set forth above.

SROG No. 25

25. IDENTIFY all PERSONS responsible for the customer relations department in the district or region having jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaints during the RELEVANT PERIOD.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25 

GM objects to this Interrogatory on grounds the terms “customer relations department” and “jurisdiction” are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Interrogatory on grounds it seeks information which is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE or the issues in this action. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this request also violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this request. GM also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent this request seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.

Plaintiff’s motion is granted with respect to this request. Defendant’s objections are not well founded nor is Defendant’s claim of privilege or trade secret.

SROG No. 26

26. IDENTIFY YOUR present employee in California who is most knowledgeable regarding YOUR warranty policies, including but not limited to any policies YOU may have had regarding the replacement or reimbursement of allegedly defective automobiles, during the RELEVANT PERIOD.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26 

GM objects to this Interrogatory on grounds the term “defective automobiles” is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. GM also objects to this Interrogatory on grounds it improperly assumes that there is a defect with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE, or GM VEHICLES, generally, invades the province of the jury, and calls for a legal conclusion. GM also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks premature disclosure of witness information. GM has not had the opportunity to inspect the SUBJECT VEHICLE or depose Plaintiff and, therefore, has not yet identified a PMK concerning Plaintiff’s allegations. Upon receipt of a proper PKM notice of deposition, GM will identify a person most knowledgeable based on the categories stated in said notice of deposition. GM reserves the right to supplement or amend this Response during the course of this proceeding.

Plaintiff’s motion is granted with respect to this request. Defendant’s objections are not well founded.

SROG No. 39

39. Identify the individual(s) whose responsibility it is to supervise to ensure that YOU are properly determining whether a vehicle should be repurchased or replaced pursuant to The Song-Beverly Warranty Act.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 39 

GM objects to this Interrogatory on grounds it is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE or the issues in this litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this request also violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this request. GM also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.

Plaintiff’s motion is denied with respect to this request for the reasons stated by Defendant.

SROG No. 41

41. Identify all person(s) involved in YOUR investigation, including any individuals with whom you communicated regarding the subject vehicle.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 41 

GM incorporates and restates its Response to Special Interrogatory No. 40. 

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 40: 

GM objects to this Interrogatory on grounds it is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. GM also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, GM states that it is informed and believes that verifiable concerns were resolved, and the SUBJECT VEHICLE has been adequately repaired within a reasonable number of repair attempts. To the extent that Plaintiff or a non-GM authorized facility caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s concerns, or to the extent Plaintiff’s failure to properly maintain the SUBJECT VEHICLE caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s concerns, such concerns are not covered under the warranty. GM evaluates each case in good faith in accordance with the provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code section 1794 et seq.) Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, GM refers Plaintiff to the documents it has produced in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, particularly the New Vehicle Limited Warranty, any Service Request Activity Report(s), the Global Warranty History Report for the SUBJECT VEHICLE, and any repair orders that GM may have obtained from GM-authorized dealerships who may have serviced, maintained, or repaired the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

The motion is denied with respect to this request. The request does not indicate what investigation is referenced, an investigation before the lawsuit or after the lawsuit or both. Also, the term investigation is unclear as to what is being investigated.    

SROG No. 43

43. Identify all individuals responsible for YOUR decision whether or not to repurchase or replace the Subject Vehicle.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 43

GM incorporates and restates its Response to Special Interrogatory No. 40. 

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 40 

GM objects to this Interrogatory on grounds it is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. GM also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving these objections, GM states that it is informed and believes that verifiable concerns were resolved, and the SUBJECT VEHICLE has been adequately repaired within a reasonable number of repair attempts. To the extent that Plaintiff or a non-GM authorized facility caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s concerns, or to the extent Plaintiff’s failure to properly maintain the SUBJECT VEHICLE caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s concerns, such concerns are not covered under the warranty. GM evaluates each case in good faith in accordance with the provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code section 1794 et seq.) Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, GM refers Plaintiff to the documents it has produced in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, particularly the New Vehicle Limited Warranty, any Service Request Activity Report(s), the Global Warranty History Report for the SUBJECT VEHICLE, and any repair orders that GM may have obtained from GM-authorized dealerships who may have serviced, maintained, or repaired the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

The motion is granted with respect to this request. Defendant’s objections and claims of privilege are not well-founded. 

Plaintiff does not seek sanctions.

DATED:  July 3, 2024

______________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court