Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21BBCV00485, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21BBCV00485 Hearing Date: August 23, 2022 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: August 23, 2022 TRIAL DATE: No date set.
CASE: ZITLALI BAILON
PINEDA, an individual, and OSMANI BAILON PINEDA, an individual, v. GENERAL
MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 21BBCV00485
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Zitali Bailon
Pineda and Osmani Bailon Pineda (“Plaintiffs”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”)
SERVICE: Filed
July 22, 2022
OPPOSITION: Filed
August 10, 2022
REPLY: Filed August 16, 2022
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiffs move for an
order compelling Defendant to produce further responses to its request for
production of documents.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiffs
Zitali Bailon Pineda and Osmani Bailon Pineda’s (“Plaintiffs”) lemon law claim.
Plaintiffs allege that they purchased a 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (“Subject
Vehicle”) on or about April 19, 2020. Plaintiffs allege that the Subject
Vehicle suffered from various defects that Defendant General Motors, LLC
(“Defendant”) was unable to fix.
Plaintiffs filed this complaint on May
19, 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
Plaintiffs’
motion to compel further responses is granted.
Defendant
is ordered to provide further responses to RFP numbers 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and
36. As to numbers 31, 32, 33, and 34, the Court adds the following language “in
vehicles of the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE".
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
Plaintiffs’
objections numbers one through six 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
Plaintiffs’ Requests for
Production of Documents
RFP No. 31: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored
information, reflecting any internal investigation and/or analysis by YOU or on
YOUR behalf of the root cause of the nonconformities which Technical Service
Bulletin (“TSB”) 19-NA-129 is intended to address. [This request shall be
interpreted to include reports, summaries, and power point presentations.]
RFP No.
32: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information, reflecting
any internal investigation or analysis by YOU or on YOUR behalf concerning TSB
19-NA129. [This request shall be interpreted to include reports, summaries, and
power point presentations.]
RFP No.
33: All, including electronically stored information, warranty claims,
customer complaints, and reported failures reflecting the nonconformities which
TSB 19-NA-129 is intended to address.
RFP No.
34: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information, reflecting
the efficacy of TSB 19-NA-129.
RFP No.
35: All, including electronically stored information, warranty claims,
customer complaints, and reported failures concerning the SUSPENSION DEFECT in
vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
RFP No. 36: All repair
procedures, including electronically stored information, developed by YOU or on
YOUR behalf and intended to address the symptoms of the SUSPENSION DEFECT in
vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE, as well as
the efficacy of said repair procedures.
Application
Defendant
objects to Plaintiffs requests for productions on the grounds that the requests
are overbroad because they seek documents pertaining to an alleged “suspension
defect” in vehicles other than the Subject Vehicle. Defendant, however,
provides that it has agreed to locate and provide Plaintiffs with Technical
Service Bulletin 19-NA-129 and customer complaints that are substantially
similar to Plaintiffs’ allegations for vehicle of the same year, make, and
model as the Subject Vehicle. Defendant also claims that Plaintiffs are seeking
trade secret or other protected information.
Defendant is ordered to provide
further responses to RFP numbers 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36, to the extent it
has not already done so. As to numbers 31, 32, 33, and 34, the Court adds the
following language “in vehicles of the same year, make and model as the
SUBJECT VEHICLE". To the extent Defendant claims any document is
protected or privileged, Defendant is ordered to produce a privilege log.
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.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’
motion to compel further responses is granted.
Defendant
is ordered to provide further responses to RFP numbers 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and
36. As to numbers 31, 32, 33, and 34, the Court adds the following language “in
vehicles of the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE".
Dated: August 22,
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.