Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00729, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00729    Hearing Date: January 16, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      January 16, 2024                                 TRIAL DATE: March 5, 2024

CASE:                         MIKE MARGULLIS, an individual, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00729

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Mike Margullis

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant General Motors LLC

SERVICE:                              Filed December 15, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed January 3, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to his requests for the production of documents.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiff Mike Margullis’s (“Plaintiff”) lemon law claim for a 2018 Chevrolet Silverado, Vehicle Identification Number 3GCPCREC7JG322418 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on January 17, 2023, alleging four causes of action against Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) for (1) violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, (3) violation of the Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2, and (4) Fraud – Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

            Plaintiff’s request 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

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to produce further responses to their requests for the production of documents. Plaintiff provides that he served written discovery on July 28, 2023. (Jacobson Decl. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff provides that Defendant produced boilerplate responses on August 31, 2023. (Id. ¶ 30.) On December 6, 2023, this court denied Plaintiff’s previous motion to compel based on Plaintiff’s failure to provide a code-compliant separate statement. Plaintiff refiled this motion with an amended separate statement.

            The court notes that Plaintiff’s separate statement still relies heavily on repeated language. However, Plaintiff has narrowed the discovery requests at issue and has added references to specific discovery requests.

            Requests for Production

            RFP No. 2: Produce all DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to all repair orders pertaining to the SUBJECT VEHICLE in YOUR possession, custody or control. [This request will be interpreted to include any and all DOCUMENTS maintained by YOUR authorized repair facilities (s) in the regular course of business, including all versions of such repair orders (accounting/invoice copies, customer copies, dealer copies, warranty copies, etc).

            RFP No. 4:  Produce all DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to all diagnostic trouble codes that are electronically stored by YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility as result of any inspections or repairs conducted on the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            RFP No. 9: Produce all DOCUMENTS that refer to or relate to pre-sale or pre-purchase DOCUMENTS that your made available to purchasers or lessees of General Motors’ vehicle equipped with the same transmission as the SUBJECT VEHICLE, reflecting or relating to the performance features of the transmission system in the HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES

            RFP No. 21: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf concerning the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            RFP No. 22: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the SUBJECT VEHICLE

            RFP No. 23: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any “Weibull Analysis” conducted by YOUR Safety Field Action Decision Authority (SFADA) relating to any predicative analysis of the life expectancy for the transmission system equipped in the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            RFP No. 24: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to the maintenance intervals of the Automatic Transmission Fluid used in the transmission system equipped in the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            RFP No. 25: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any and all GM Speak Up for Safety (SUFS) documents relating to TRANSMISSION DEFECTS equipped in the SUBJECT VEHICLE and/or other HYDRAMATIC VEHICLES.

            RFP No. 27: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any documents titled, referred to, or labeled, 8RWD Gen 1 Top Open Issues.

            RFP No. 29: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to all Global Safety Field Investigations performed by the Global Warranty Management Department for General Motors relating to the 8L45 or 8L90 eight-speed automatic transmission system found in any all vehicles manufactured or distributed by General Motors.

            RFP No. 31: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any internal communications or investigations performed by YOUR custodian identified in the Won v. General Motors, LLC matter, William “Bill” Goodrich (GM’s Assistant Chief Engineer for the 8-speed transmission) relating to TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in the HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES.

            RFP No. 35: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any internal communications or investigations performed by Mark Gordon (GM’s Brand Quality Manager) stating: “Unfortunately the shift quality of this 8- speed transmission does not meet the expectations of our customers.”

            RFP No. 50: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to any “Shudder 101” presentations from Peter Radecki relating to the transmission system found in the HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES.

            RFP No. 52: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning, referring, or relating to Failure Mode and Effects Analysis reports (or comparable root cause analyses) concerning the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            RFP No. 53: All DOCUMENTS, including power points, memoranda, reports, warnings, investigations, engineering reviews, executive summaries, that were prepared by YOU or YOUR engineers, concerning the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in the HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES which includes information relating to (1) Discovery of the Problem; (2) Condition; (3) Effect of the Condition; (4) Root Causes; (5) Relevant Field Data; (6) Recommended Decisions

            RFP No. 55: All DOCUMENTS, including power points, memoranda, reports, warnings, investigations, engineering reviews, executive summaries, that were prepared by YOU or YOUR engineers, concerning the Torque Converter Clutch (TCC) Lifecycle for the transmission system equipped in the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            RFP No. 56: All DOCUMENTS, including power points, memoranda, reports, warnings, investigations, engineering reviews, executive summaries, that were prepared YOU, by/for GM’s Safety & Field Action Decision Authority for “Torque Converter Shudder during light Acceleration” in the HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES.

            RFP No. 70: All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and emails within YOUR customer satisfaction surveys, or the equivalent, regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            Application

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is granted as to RFP numbers 2, 4, 9, 24, 35, 53, and 56.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is denied as to RFP numbers 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 50, 52, 55, and 70.

            Defendant is ordered to produce further responses, to the extent it has not already done so, within 10 days in compliance with this court order. Defendant may submit a code-compliant privilege log for any materials it asserts is privileged.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

            Moving party to provide notice.

Dated:   January 16, 2024                                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org