Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV00811, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23AHCV00811 Hearing Date: March 21, 2024 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: March 21, 2024 TRIAL
DATE: May 14, 2024
CASE: STEVEN JACKSON v.
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Steven Jackon
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant
General Motors LLC
SERVICE: Filed January 11, 2024
OPPOSITION: Filed March 8, 2024
REPLY: Filed March 14, 2024
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 Steven
Jackson’s (“Plaintiff”) lemon law claim involving a 2020 Chevrolet Silverado
1500, Vehicle Identification Number 3GCPWCED6LG410800 (“Subject
Vehicle”). Plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 11, 2024, alleging two
causes of action for (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express
Warranty and (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED.
All
requests for sanctions are DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD
This case arises out of Plaintiff Steven
Jackson’s (“Plaintiff”) lemon law claim involving a 2020 Chevrolet Silverado
1500, Vehicle Identification Number 3GCPWCED6LG410800 (“Subject
Vehicle”). Plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 11, 2024, alleging two
causes of action for (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express
Warranty and (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to his
requests for the production of documents. Plaintiff provides that he served his
requests for the production of documents on October 30, 2023. (Thomas Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff provides that Defendant provided unverified
and deficient responses on November 27, 2023. (Id. ¶ 6.)
Here, as with Plaintiff’s previous motion to compel
further, the attached separate statement is deficient. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345
requires a separate statement to include “[a] statement of the factual and
legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to
each matter in dispute”. In his separate statement, Plaintiff includes a
section titled “reasons why a further response should be compelled” after each
discovery issue. The section includes a litany of subsections including “code
compliance”, “specificity”, “overbreadth”, “burden”, “relevance”, and “civil
penalties”. However, Plaintiff’s separate statement fails to identify grounds
to compel further responses as to each matter in dispute.
Thus, based on Plaintiff’s deficient
separate statement, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is denied.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED.
All
requests for sanctions are DENIED.
Dated: March 21, 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