Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21AHCV00159, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21AHCV00159    Hearing Date: July 25, 2022    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     July 25, 2022               TRIAL DATE:  May 16, 2023

CASE:                         JOSE MERALA, an individual, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 21AHCV00159

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

MOVING PARTY:              Plaintiff Jose Merala

RESPONDING PARTY:     Defendant General Motors, LLC

SERVICE:                             Filed June 22, 2022

OPPOSITION:                      Filed July 12, 2022

REPLY:                                  Filed July 18, 2022

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to produce further responses to its request for production of documents.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiff Jose Merala’s (“Plaintiff”) lemon law claim against Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that on or about February 4, 2021, he purchased a 2020 Chevrolet Silverado Medium Duty with the Vehicle Identification Number 1HTKHPVK7LH647010 (“Subject Vehicle”).

Plaintiff filed this complaint on December 22, 2021, alleging five causes of action for (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d), (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b), (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3), (4) breach of express written warranty, and (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is granted in part.

Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to RFP numbers 7, 10, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 27.

Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to RFP numbers 18, 19, 25 with the added language “in vehicles of the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE"

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is denied as to RFP numbers 40, and 42.

OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.

LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

            Request for Production of Documents

            RFP No. 7: The Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by YOU and provided to YOUR authorized repair facility(s), within the state of California, from 2020 to the present. [This request will be understood to include production of any and all versions of such manual as distributed to YOUR dealerships during the relevant time frame.]

            RFP No. 10: A copy of the Workshop Manual specifying diagnosis and repair procedures for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            RFP No. 16: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding STEERING/SUSPENSION DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request shall be interpreted to include, but not be limited to, any such investigation to determine the root cause of such STEERING/SUSPENSION DEFECT, any such investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for such STEERING/SUSPENSION DEFECT, any such investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with such STEERING/SUSPENSION DEFECT, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedure, any savings analysis not implementing proposed repair procedures, etc.]

            RFP No. 18: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls concerning the STEERING/SUSPENSION DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request shall be interpreted to include any such investigation to determine the root cause of the STEERING/SUSPENSION DEFECT, any such investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for the STEERING/SUSPENSION DEFECT, any such investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with the STEERING/SUSPENSION DEFECT, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedures, any savings analysis not implementing a proposed repair procedures, etc.]

            RFP No. 19: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to STEERING/SUSPENSION DEFECT, including but not limited to any databases in YOUR possession with information from dealers, service departments, parts departments, or warranty departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure.

            RFP No. 20: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning failure rates of vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE as a result of STEERING/SUSPENSION DEFECT.

            RFP No. 21: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any fixes for the STEERING/SUSPENSION DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            RFP No. 22: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request shall be interpreted to include, but not be limited to, any such investigation to determine the root cause of such COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT, any such investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for such COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT, any such investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with such COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedure, any savings analysis not implementing proposed repair procedures, etc.]

            RFP No. 24: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls concerning the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request shall be interpreted to include any such investigation to determine the root cause of the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT, any such investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT, any such investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedures, any savings analysis not implementing a proposed repair procedures, etc.]

            RFP No. 25: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT, including but not limited to any databases in YOUR possession with information from dealers, service departments, parts departments, or warranty departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure.

            RFP No. 26: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning failure rates of vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE as a result of the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT.

            RFP No. 27: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any fixes for the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            RFP No. 40: All DOCUMENTS that YOU use to evaluate consumers' requests for repurchases pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

            RFP No. 42: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to procedures used by YOU for the handling of complaints by consumers regarding vehicles YOU manufactured or distributed.

            CONCLUSION

Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to RFP numbers 7, 16, 19, 20, 21,22,25 26, and 27. As to numbers 19 and 25 the court adds the following language. To the extent Defendant claims any document is protected or privileged, Defendant is ordered to produce a privilege log.

            Defendant is ordered to produce further responses to RFP numbers 10, 18, and 24, to the extent that it has not already done so.

As to numbers 18, 19, 25 the courts adds the following language “in vehicles of the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE"

            Defendant’s objections are sustained as to RFP numbers 40, and 42 as overbroad.

            The Court finds that it would be unjust to grant sanctions in the present motion because neither party addressed sanctions nor provided a method for calculating sanctions in their motions.       

           Moving party to give notice.

Dated:   July 25, 2022                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.