Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV01335, Date: 2023-11-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01335    Hearing Date: November 2, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Jose Gilberto Delgado Leyva (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents Nos. 13-16 and 34-35 propounded to Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”).

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFP Nos. 13-16 and 34-35 is GRANTED as set forth below. Defendant shall produce within 30 days further written responses and documents in accordance with the Court’s guidelines for production set forth below.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2004.15.  Defendant shall pay the attorney’s fees directly to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days. 

Background

Plaintiff purchased a 2021 GMC Sierra 1500. Plaintiff alleges the car suffered from serious defects and nonconformities to warranty. Plaintiff elaborates in his motion that these defects included (1) transmission issues, including lack of power upon acceleration; (2) vehicle not going into gears; and (3) hesitation and jerking.

Plaintiff filed a complaint on January 20, 2023, pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act alleging (1) breach of express warranty under Civil Code section 1790 et seq.; (2) breach of implied warranty under Civil Code section 1790 et seq.; (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2; and (4) violation of Civil Code section 1793.22.

Plaintiff served Defendant with the RFP’s on May 26, 2023. Defendant served responses on June 26, 2023. Plaintiff argues that the responses at issue are deficient. The parties met and conferred between July 25, 2023, and August 1, 2023, but were unable to resolve the dispute.

Legal Standard

Song-Beverly Act

The Song—Beverly Act “is a remedial measure intended for protection of consumers and should be given a construction consistent with that purpose.” (Id.) To succeed on a claim brought under the Act, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, several elements, including nonconformity of a vehicle that substantially impaired its use, value or safety; presentation of vehicle to manufacturer or authorized representative for repair; and failure to repair the defect after a reasonable number of attempts. (Ibrahim v. Ford Motor Co. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 878, 886-887.) A buyer may also be entitled to a civil penalty of up to two times the actual damages upon a showing that the manufacturer willfully failed to abide by any of its obligations under the Act. (Civ. Code, §1794, subd. (c).)

Scope of Discovery and Discovery Obligations in Song-Beverly Act litigation

CCP § 2017.010

Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.

CCP §2031.220

A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.

CCP §2031.230

A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.

CCP § 2031.310

(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

          (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

          (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.

(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.

… (h) Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

          The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)  Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)    

“Relevant evidence is defined in Evidence Code section 210 as evidence ‘having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.’ The test of relevance is whether the evidence tends logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to establish material facts. The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence but lacks discretion to admit irrelevant evidence.”  (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 148 (evidence of post-warranty repairs relevant to action based on warranty repairs because they could demonstrate that vehicle was not repaired to conform to warranty during warranty period.)

In Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, plaintiff alleged violation of the Song-Beverly Act based on the defendants’ failure to repair, repurchase, or replace a Bentley that had an obnoxious odor in the interior. (Id. at 971.) The following discovery requests were deemed “highly relevant” and failure to readily produce them prior to trial should have resulted in terminating sanctions: 

“all documents relating to (1) customer complaints concerning the rust inhibitor used on the 2002 Bentley Arnage; (2) all notices to Bentley dealers for the period 2001 to date concerning the rust inhibitor used on the Bentley Arnage; (3) all warranty repairs during the period of January 2002 to date of the Bentley Arnage related to the rust inhibitor used on the  vehicle; (4) all customer complaints of a wax oil smell caused by the rust inhibitor on the 2002 Bentley Arnage; and (5) vehicle tests conducted on the 2002 model year Arnage to confirm whether there was a wax oil smell arising from the vehicle's rust inhibitor.”

(Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at pp. 973-974.)

Discussion

          The parties’ respective positions can be found in their briefs and separate statements.  In general, the requests seek relevant documents and issues of burden are dealt with by the limitations below.

The Court rules as follows:

Request for Production No. 13: Defendant shall produce all responsive documents about repurchases in California, except that Defendant shall not be required to search for emails.

Request for Production No. 14: Defendant shall produce all responsive documents about complaints in California.

Request for Production No. 15: Defendant shall produce all responsive documents relating to reports in California, except that Defendant shall not be required to search for emails.

Request for Production No. 16: Defendant shall produce all responsive documents relating to complaints in California, except that Defendant shall not be required to search for emails.

Request for Production No. 34: Defendant shall produce all responsive documents, except that Defendant shall not be required to search for emails.

Request for Production No. 35: Defendant shall produce all responsive documents, except that Defendant shall not be required to search for emails.

          In producing the foregoing, Defendant shall redact all personally identifiable information in the responsive items.

Sanctions

          As discussed above, sanctions are appropriate when a party improperly opposes a motion to compel unless the party acted with substantial justification or sanctions would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)

          The amount of attorney’s fees requested, $2,004.15, appears justified.   (Yashar Decl. paragraphs 14-15.)  Accordingly, the Court awards $2,004.15 against Defendant, payable within 30 days.