Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 21-01213303, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Production

Tentative Ruling:  Plaintiffs Noe Campos and Monica Manrique (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order striking Defendant General Motors LLC’s (“Defendant”) objections to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and compelling Defendant to provide further responses.

The Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The Court finds the parties adequately met and conferred prior to the filing of this Motion.

Request No. 16

This request seeks all documents “concerning any internal analysis or investigation by [Defendant] or on [Defendant’s] behalf regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Defendant objected and stated no documents would be produced.

Plaintiffs contend these documents, including any responsive technical service bulletins (“TSBs”), will show Defendant was aware of a transmission defect, investigated the defect, and was generally aware that it did not know how to fix the defect.  Plaintiffs argue this can show whether Defendant was aware of a prevalent defect which could not be repaired.

Defendant contends documents related to other vehicles are irrelevant. 

The Court notes that Defendant states it has already supplemented its document production to include documents of other customer complaints within its ESI database substantially similar to Plaintiffs’ complaints concerning the alleged defects.  However, the declaration in support of Defendant’s Opposition does not confirm any supplemental production or attach any further responses by Defendant.

The Court finds the request seeks production of relevant documents.  Documents concerning Defendant’s internal analysis or investigation regarding the defects claimed by Plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make, and model could be used to show Defendant was aware of a defect and knew it was potentially a defect for which there was no adequate remedy.  Thus, the Motion as to Request for Production No. 16 is GRANTED to the extent Defendant has not already supplemented its document production to include documents responsive to this request. 

Request No. 17

This request seeks all documents “concerning or relating to any communications [Defendant has] had regarding TRANSMISSION DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” 

Defendant objected and stated no documents would be produced.

As with Request No. 16, the Court finds the documents sought are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendant was aware of the transmission defect and knew it was unable to repair or remedy the defect, such that Defendant’s refusal to buy the vehicle back was unjustified.  Thus, the Motion as to Request for Production No. 17 is GRANTED. 

Request No. 18

This request seeks all documents “concerning or relating to any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls concerning the TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S) in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

In its response, Defendant stated it will comply in part and produce a list of technical service bulletins for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle.  After it has produced the list of TSBs, Defendant will search for and produce copies of a reasonable number of TSBs that Plaintiffs have identified as relevant to the conditions alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.  Defendant also stated the subject vehicle has no record of recalls.

Plaintiffs contend these documents will show Defendant knew it lacked any fix for the defect in Plaintiffs’ vehicle and nevertheless refused to repurchase Plaintiffs’ vehicle.  Defendant’s knowledge is relevant.  However, Plaintiffs have failed to articulate why all documents concerning or relating to any decision by Defendant is necessary for Plaintiffs to prove Defendant’s knowledge of a defect.  The request is therefore overbroad.  Defendant has stated it will produce a list of TSBs, from which it will then produce the TSBs identified by Plaintiffs as relevant.  The Court finds this to be sufficient to allow Plaintiff to determine whether Defendant had knowledge or notice of a defect. 

The Motion as to Request for Production No. 18 is DENIED.

Request No. 19

This request seeks all documents “concerning customer complaints, claims, reported, failures, and warranty claims related to the TRANSMISSION DEFECT, including but not limited to any databases in [Defendant’s] possession with information from dealers, service departments, parts departments, or warranty departments, and all documents concerning [Defendant’s] response to each complaint, claim or reported failure.” 

The Court finds this request to be overbroad because it is not limited to the make, model, and year of Plaintiffs’ vehicle.  (See Jensen v. BMW of North America, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2019) 328 F.R.D. 557, 564.)

Thus, the Motion as to Request No. 19 is DENIED.

Request No. 20

This request seeks all documents concerning failure rates of vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subjection vehicle as a result of the TRANSMISSION DEFECT.

The Court finds this request to be overbroad and vague.  The request does not describe with reasonable particularity the documents Plaintiffs seek.  Rather, it seeks all documents that concern failure rates, which would include internal communications, reports, etc.  Plaintiffs contend the documents are needed to demonstrate Defendant’s awareness of a high prevalence of the defect.  However, many of Plaintiffs’ other requests seek documents that also go to Defendant’s knowledge of a defect.  Plaintiffs can obtain the information sought through other, more tailored and specific requests. 

Thus, the Motion as to Request No. 20 is DENIED.

Request No. 21

This request seeks all documents concerning or relating to any fixes for the TRANSMISSION DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle.

The Court finds that this request is also overbroad and vague.  It does not describe any document sought with particularity.  Instead, it seeks all documents that concern or relate to any “fixes” by Defendant for the defect of which Plaintiffs complain.  Again, to the extent Plaintiffs seek these documents to demonstrate Defendant’s knowledge of a defect, the information can be obtained by Plaintiffs through the other more specific requests propounded on Defendant. 

Thus, Motion as to Request for Production No. 21 is DENIED.

Request No. 58

This request seeks all documents related to Defendant’s “Technical Service Bulletin PIP5681B, including but not limited to, all versions from the first published to the current, and all internal analysis reports that were incorporated into the Technical Service Bulletin.”

Defendant contends that this request’s scope far exceeds anything related to the alleged transmission defect and Plaintiffs have made no effort to limit this request.  TSBs are general repair documents and apply to a multitude of year, make, and model vehicles beyond the 2019 Chevrolet Traverse model at issue.  Defendant contends this request would require production of trade secret material, which would cause Defendant competitive harm.

The Court finds this request to be overbroad because it is not limited to the make, model, and year of Plaintiffs’ vehicle.  In response to Request No. 18, Defendant has stated it will produce a list of all technical service bulletins for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiffs’ vehicle, and then produce copies of the TSBs Plaintiffs deem relevant from that produced list.  This request is duplicative of that request, assuming TSB PIP5681B relates to the make, model, and year of Plaintiffs’ vehicle.  If TSB PIP5681B does not relate to the make, model, and year of Plaintiffs’ vehicle, then this request would seek information that is irrelevant and outside the proper scope of discovery.

Thus, the Motion as to Request No. 58 is DENIED.

Plaintiffs to give notice.