Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV03084, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03084    Hearing Date: October 19, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Tentative Ruling -

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED as follows.  Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) shall provide further responses and responsive documents to Plaintiff’s Requests For Production of Documents 13-16 and 34-35 within 30 days in accordance with the guidelines set forth below.

Plaintiff’s request for sanction is GRANTED.  Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel $1,761.65 within 30 days.

Background -

In 2022, Ma Guadalupe Alvarez-Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) purchased a 2022 Chevrolet Trax (“Vehicle”) from General Motors LLC (“Defendant”). (Complaint, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle was delivered to her with serious defects and nonconformities to the warranty. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) After several attempts at repair, the vehicle could not be repaired, and Defendant failed to buy the vehicle back from Plaintiff. (Complaint, ¶¶ 23-25.)

Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit on February 10, 2023. Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) and Request for Sanctions (“Motion”) on September 1, 2023. Defendant filed a declaration and separate statement in opposition, but no brief.  Plaintiff filed her reply on October 13, 2023. 

Discussion -

Legal Standard

The propounding party may bring motions to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for production if it believes (1) the responses received are evasive, or (2) incomplete, or (3) if the objections raised are meritless or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a).) A respondent has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) If a motion to compel responses to interrogatories is filed, the Court may impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Analysis

Defendant argues through their separate statement that the Motion should be denied because (1) the documents requested are not relevant and overbroad and (2) that the requested documents may contain trade secret material. The Court disagrees on both counts and grants the Motion as specified below.

Defendant first objects to all requests at issue, here, 13-16 and 34-35, with some formulation of the request or its terms being “overbroad, vague, and ambiguous.” Defendant also contends Plaintiff “already received information and documents that are directly responsive to these requests.” (See Separate Statement in Support of GM’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion, 3:3-5) However, the Court notes that Defendant’s response to requests 13-16 ends with the sentence “No documents will be produced.” Moreover, as to the claim that the requests are “overbroad, vague, and ambiguous”, Defendant provides little explanation as to how, other than the documents being requested are irrelevant. To the relevance point, Defendant argues that requests for the information on vehicles not belonging to Plaintiff have no bearing on proving whether GM breached its warranty in this case. (Id. at 4:22). The Court disagrees.

“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.” (CCP § 2017.010) Plaintiff correctly notes that the standards of discovery are applied liberally, and any doubt is resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.)

The requests by their terms are narrowed to the specific car, specific make, and specific model and year. Moreover, Plaintiff has wisely made clear that the requests can be limited to those vehicles purchased or leased in California.  (See final page of Plaintiff’s Reply.)  Finally, the Court has clarified that as to certain requests no emails need to be searched.

In accordance with the principles above, the Court clarifies that Defendant must provide further responses and all relevant documents in accordance with the following guidelines:

Request No. 13:  Defendant shall produce documents sufficient to show its specified repurchases in the state of California.

Request No. 14:  Defendant shall produce the specified documents relating to customer complaints in the state of California.

Request No. 15:  Defendant shall produce the specified documents relating to customer problems in the state of California.

Request No. 16:  Defendant shall produce the specified documents relating to customer complaints in the state of California.

Request No. 34:  Defendant shall produce such documents to the extent that they relate to the same defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.  Defendant is not required to search for or produce emails in response to this request.

Request No. 35:  Defendant shall produce such documents to the extent that they relate to the same defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.  Defendant is not required to search for or produce emails in response to this request.

Sanctions

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that under the circumstances of this case discovery sanctions are mandatory under Civil Code section 2031.320(b).

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,004.15. Plaintiff provides calculations through the Declaration of Nadia Yashar:

·       Counsel’s hourly rate is $425.00.

·       Counsel spent 2 hours drafting the instant Motion.

·       Counsel spent 1 hour reviewing Defendant’s opposition papers and drafting a reply.

·       Counsel will spend 1.5 hours preparing for and attending the hearing.

·       Counsel incurred a $61.65 filing fee for the Motion.

The Court will award $1,761.65 in sanctions to Plaintiff, imposed against Defendant, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days.