Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV08035, Date: 2024-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08035    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

            The Court DENIES the Motion to Compel Further Request for Production. 

            Brief Background

This is a breach of warranty case about a 2018 Chevrolet Silverado (“Subject Vehicle” or “Silverado”). Plaintiff Luis Silva (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint against Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) on April 11, 2023.

On September 26, 2023, Plaintiff served 56 requests for production, 5 of which are at issue here. (Liu Decl., Ex. 7).

On the same day, Plaintiff propounded discovery requests, Plaintiff sent a meet-and-confer letter regarding Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”).

GM served Plaintiff with full and complete responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production on October 25, 2023. (Liu Decl., Ex. 8 and ¶ 19.)

On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff sent a letter to GM regarding GM’s discovery responses with objections. (Liu Decl., Ex. 11.) On December 8, 2023, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s letter.

On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff executed the protective order. (Liu Decl., Ex. 16.) On December 12, 2023, GM provided additional materials.

On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff emailed GM regarding GM’s supplemental document production. (Kowalski Decl., Ex. L).

On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed the present Motion to Compel.

On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Request for an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”).

On February 22, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Request for an IDC and requested Plaintiff resubmit an amended request.

On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended Request for IDC.

On March 6, 2024, the Court denied the Amended Request for an IDC, determining an IDC was not required, and authorized Plaintiff “to file motions to compel and request sanctions.”

On March 14, 2024, Defendant filed its opposition.

On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed his reply.

            Party’s Request

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff Luis Silva’s submitted evidentiary objections, however the formatting did not comply with Rule 3.1354. Therefore, the Court will not rule on them.

Legal Standard

A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories if the responding party produced an evasive or incomplete answer or a meritless or overly general objection in response to an interrogatory.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a).)  A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories lies where the party to whom the interrogatories were directed gave responses deemed improper by the propounding party; e.g., objections, or evasive or incomplete answers.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.)  The moving party must also include reasons why further answers should be ordered: legal or factual arguments why the answers given were incomplete or nonresponsive, or the objections invalid.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(c).)  “The statement of reasons is required to help the judge prepare for the hearing.  But this does not change the burden of persuasion at the hearing-i.e, the responding party still has the burden of justifying at the hearing each objection raised to discovery.”  (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2011) ¶ 8:1157, 8:1179.) 

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).)  “To establish ‘good cause,’ the burden is on the moving party to show both: [¶] Relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and [¶] Specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.) [Citations.] [¶] The fact that there is no alternative source for the information sought is an important factor in establishing ‘good cause’ for inspection.  But it is not essential in every case.”  (Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial, Discovery (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶ 8:1495.6.)  “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation]  Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation]  These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.”  (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

Discussion

Meet and Confer

Before bringing a motion to compel further responses to any discovery request, the moving party is required to make efforts to meet and confer in good faith and must submit a declaration attesting to those efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310(b)(2), 2030.300(b), 2033.290(b).)  “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.) 

Here, Plaintiff contends that he engaged in multiple meet and confers with Defendant. (Liu Decl. ¶¶ 20-30; Kay Decl. ¶ 4,6.) Further, his IDC was denied by the Court and he was allowed to file without it. (Supplemental Liu Decl. ¶ 7.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not meet and confer because the letters were not in good faith. However, a discovery motion should not be denied automatically based upon the reason that the moving parties failed to meet and confer in good faith.  (See Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434.)

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

Request for Production Nos. 16, 20, 21

No. 16: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding TRANSMISSION DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request shall be interpreted to include, but not be limited to, any such investigation to determine the root cause of such TRANSMISSION DEFECT, any such investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for such TRANSMISSION DEFECT, any such investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with such TRANSMISSION DEFECT, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedure, any savings analysis not implementing proposed repair procedures, etc.]

No. 20: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning failure rates of vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE as a result of TRANSMISSION DEFECT.

No. 21: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any fixes for the TRANSMISSION DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

            Here, Plaintiff argues that the requested discovery will show that Defendant was aware of the TRANSMISSION DEFECT through internal analysis and investigation. Moreover, it will also show that Defendant knew that it lacked any fix for the defect but failed to repurchase the Subject Vehicle. Defendant argues that these requests are largely irrelevant and overbroad, seeking information that has no bearing on Plaintiff’s individual complaints about the Subject Vehicle. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff has asserted breach of warranty claims, not product liability claims. The Court agrees that this request is too broad. Neverthless, GM  has already supplemented its production — pursuant to the Protective Order — to produce other customer complaints within GM’s ESI database that are substantially similar to Plaintiff’s complaint(s) concerning the alleged “TRANSMISSION DEFECT”– referenced in Plaintiff’s Requests – for vehicles purchased in California of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle. (Declaration of Ryan Kay (“Kay Decl.”), ¶ 9; Declaration of Joseph Liu (“Liu Decl.”), Ex. 17.) The Court finds these additional production to be adequate.

            Therefore, the Court DENIES these requests. 

Request for Production No. 19

All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to TRANSMISSION DEFECT, including but not limited to any databases in YOUR possession with information from dealers, service departments, parts departments, or warranty departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure.

            Here, Plaintiff reiterates his same argument as above. Defendant argues that it has already appropriately provided documents responsive to these requests, and these requests plainly go well beyond the narrow scope of the claims and defenses pending in this individual breach of warranty case.

For the same reasons mentioned above, the Court DENIES this request.

Request for Production No. 32

All DOCUMENTS relied upon by YOU in support of YOUR contention that YOU were under no obligation to promptly replace or repurchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Here, Defendant argues that this request is overbroad on its face because it asks for ALL DOCUMENTS without limitation. Moreover, GM already supplemented its production, subject to the protective order entered by this Court, to include its Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual and its policies and procedures used to evaluate lemon law claims and repurchase requests made under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act during the relevant time period, as well as the service manual for the Subject Vehicle. (See Liu Decl., Ex. 17.) Plaintiff argues that these responses are insufficient. However, the Court disagrees. The request is overbroad and the documents presented by Defendant are properly answer Plaintiff’s discovery request.

            Therefore, the Court DENIES this request. 

 Defendant’s Objection – Trade Secret 

The party claiming a trade secret privilege has the burden of establishing its existence.  (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1393.) The propounding party must then make a showing that the discovery sought is relevant and necessary to proving or defending against an element of one or more causes of action in the case and that it is reasonably essential to resolving the lawsuit. (Ibid.) Upon this showing, it is up to the holder of the privilege to show that a protective order would be inadequate. (Ibid.) (emphasis added.)  

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Request targets confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive trade secrets and other protected information, asserting it would suffer competitive harm. In support, Defendant provides that it has “[d]ocuments with details about engineering, warranty, and root cause analyses, engineering and manufacturing specifications and testing, component or product improvement, and costs and financial forecasts are often discussed in internal communications, meeting notices and minutes, and presentation materials.” Therefore, Defendant met its burden that a trade secret exists. Nevertheless, Defendant did not show that a protective order would be inadequate, therefore, the Court finds a protective order may alleviate any of Defendant’s concerns.

            Accordingly, the Court DENIES these requests.

Dated:  March 27, 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.