Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV27575, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27575    Hearing Date: January 8, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce a PMQ is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART consistent with the ruling set forth below. Accordingly, the Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

On 8/24/2022, Plaintiffs Gabriela Gloria Medina Gomez aka Gabriela Medina and Janneth Elizalde (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against General Motors, LLC, alleging a violation of the Song-Beverly Act—breach of express warranty.

            Now, Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant to produce a Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian of Records to be deposed.

Discussion

            Plaintiffs argue that Defendant must be compelled to produce a PMQ because despite numerous efforts to meet and confer, Defendant failed to respond with alternative dates of availability and subsequently failed to produce its PMQ as noticed.

            Plaintiff’s Deposition seeks testimony on the following topics:

-         1. General Motors LLC’s pre-litigation analysis as to whether the 2019 Chevrolet CRUZE, VIN: 1G1BC5SM6K7113032 should be repurchased.

-         2. All repairs and service performed on the 2019 Chevrolet CRUZE, VIN: 1G1BC5SM6K7113032.

-         3. General Motors LLC’s policies and procedures for determining whether a vehicle qualifies for a repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly Act.

-         4. General Motors LLC’s training for evaluating a pre-litigation repurchase request under the Song-Beverly Act.

Moreover, it seeks production of the following documents:

-         1. YOUR entire pre-litigation file regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

-         2. YOUR pre-litigation communications with Plaintiff(s) regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

-         3. YOUR policies and procedures for determining whether a vehicle qualifies for a repurchase under the Song-Beverly Act.

-         4. All training materials provided to YOUR employees or YOUR call-center agents regarding the handling of pre-litigation consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase in California.

-         5. All DOCUMENTS evidencing your pre-litigation evaluation of whether the SUBJECT VEHICLE qualified for a repurchase under the Song-Beverly Act.

-         6. All DOCUMENTS that YOU reviewed in YOUR pre-litigation evaluation of whether the SUBJECT VEHICLE qualified for a repurchase under the Song-Beverly Act.

In opposition, Defendant argues that it has already agreed to produce a PMQ on the following topics: (1) GM’s pre-litigation analysis as to whether Plaintiff’s Cruze should be repurchased; (2) Any repairs and service reflected in the Global Warranty History Report applicable to the Subject Vehicle; and (3) Whether GM received a request from Plaintiffs to repurchase the vehicle and, if so, how GM responded to Plaintiffs’ request, if any. Defendant argues that any topics and documents outside of this scope are overly broad and irrelevant.

The Court disagrees in part.

As for the topics of testimony, GM has already agreed to topics 1 and 2, but disagrees with topics 3 and 4. The Court finds topic 3 relevant for the period of purchase to the present. However, the Court finds testimony related to training to be outside the relevant scope of discovery.

As for document production, the Court finds Requests 1, 2, and 3 to be relevant. GM must produce all documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for the period of purchase to the present. The Court also finds Request Nos. 5 and 6 to be relevant, given that they concern the subject vehicle. Request No.4 is outside the relevant scope of discovery.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce a PMQ is granted in part, denied in part, consistent with the ruling set forth above. Accordingly, the Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.