Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00447, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00447    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     May 1, 2023                            TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         JENNIFER CASTILLO and DELFINO GONZALEZ v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00447

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Jennifer Castillo and Delfino Gonzalez

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant General Motors, LLC

SERVICE:                              Filed March 6, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed April 18, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed April 24, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiffs move for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to their requests for the production of documents.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiffs Jennifer Castillo and Delfino Gonzalez’s (“Plaintiffs”) breach of warranty claim for a 2016 Chevrolet Tahoe, Vehicle Identification Number 1GNSCAKC7GR271633 (“Subjection Vehicle”). Plaintiffs filed this complaint on July 8, 2022, alleging one cause of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty against Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”).

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to their requests for the production of documents is granted in part and denied in part.

            Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions is denied.

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

             Requests for Production

            Plaintiffs provide they served Defendant with requests for the production of documents set one on October 19, 2022. (Thomas Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s responses were insufficient. Defendant argues that Plaintiff seeks documents already produced and that Plaintiffs’ requests are irrelevant or overbroad.

            RFP No. 16: All of YOUR warranty claims policy and procedure manual(s) from 2017 to the present.

            RFP No. 17: YOUR workshop manual(s) for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            RFP No. 18: The operative Franchise Agreement, if any, on the date of sale of the SUBJECT VEHICLE between YOU and the dealership that sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to Plaintiffs.

            RFP No. 19: All DOCUMENTS which describe the procedures used by YOU for evaluating and responding to complaints by California consumers regarding vehicles YOU manufactured or distributed since 2020.

            RFP No. 20: All DOCUMENTS which describe policies, procedures, and/or instructions since 2017 that YOUR employees and agents should follow when evaluating a customer request for a refund of their money paid towards or owed on a motor vehicle manufactured or distributed by YOU.

            RFP No. 21: All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, or guidelines for determining whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2017.

            RFP No. 22: All training materials regarding the handling of consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase in California since 2017.

            RFP No. 23: All training materials for YOUR employees or agents tasked with determining whether a vehicle is eligible or a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2017.

            RFP No. 24: All scripts and flow charts that YOU utilize in handling California consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase or replacement since 2017.

            RFP No. 25: All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining what constitutes a repair presentation to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2017.

            RFP No. 26: All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining what constitutes a “non-conformity” to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2017.

            RFP No. 27: All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining what constitutes a “substantial impairment” of a vehicle’s use, value, or safety to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2017.

            RFP No. 28: All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for defining what constitutes a “reasonable number of repair attempts” to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2017.

            RFP No. 29: All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for establishing the turn-around time to respond to a vehicle repurchase request pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2017.

            RFP No. 30: All DOCUMENTS that YOU utilize to determine whether a vehicle is eligible for a repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2017.

            RFP No. 31: All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe YOUR policies, procedures and/or instructions since 2017 which YOUR authorized repair facilities should follow regarding customer requests for a refund of the price paid for a vehicle pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.

            RFP No. 33: All Technical Service Bulletins which have been issued for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            RFP No. 37: DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify all of YOUR OBDII codes for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            RFP No. 38: DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all of YOUR vehicle symptom codes for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            RFP No. 39: DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all of YOUR vehicle component repair codes for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            RFP No. 40: DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all of YOUR customer complaint codes from 2017 to present.

            RFP No. 41: DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all labor operation codes provided by YOU to YOUR authorized dealerships from 2017 to present.

            RFP No. 45: All DOCUMENTS evidencing complaints by owners of 2016 Chevrolet Tahoe vehicles regarding any of the complaints that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented to YOUR or YOUR authorized repair facilities for repair during the warranty period.

            RFP No. 46: All DOCUMENTS evidencing warranty repairs to 2016 Chevrolet Tahoe vehicles regarding any of the components that YOU or YOUR authorized repair facilities performed repairs on under warranty.

            Application

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to their requests for the production of documents is granted in part and denied in part.

            Defendant is ordered to provide further responses, to the extent that it has not already done so, to requests for production numbers 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 37, 38, 39, 45, and 46. To the extent that Defendant asserts the documents sought are confidential, Defendant may move for a protective order or submit a privilege log.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is denied as to requests for production numbers 18, 24, 29, 40, and 41.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to their requests for the production of documents is granted in part and denied in part.

            Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions is denied.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   May 1, 2023                                      ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court