Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV03722, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV03722 Hearing Date: February 6, 2024 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
SERGIO GARCIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant. |
Case No:
23STCV03722 Hearing Date: February 6, 2024 Calendar Number: 5 |
Plaintiff Sergio Garcia (“Plaintiff”) seeks and order
compelling the deposition of Defendant General Motors, LLC (“General Motors”)’s
person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) on a number of subjects, with production of
subpoenaed documents.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion IN PART, as set forth
below. Defendant shall produce a responsive PMK for deposition and responsive
documents within 30 days of the issuance of this order. The responsive
documents must in any event be produced by the date and time of the deposition.
This is a Song-Beverly Act action.
Plaintiff purchased a new vehicle (the “Subject Vehicle”)
manufactured by Defendant.
A number of defects arose in the Subject Vehicle. Plaintiff
presented the vehicle to Defendant for repair under the warranty but alleges
that a reasonable number of repair attempts were not able to bring the Subject
vehicle into conformity with the warranty.
Plaintiff filed this action on February 21, 2023, alleging
breach of warranty under the 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).)
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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) Discovery
may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any
other party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)
“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 [internal quotations and citations omitted].)
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.)
"Any party may obtain discovery…by taking in California
the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The
person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or
private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental
agency." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) "Except as provided in
subdivision (a) of Section 2025.280 the process by which a nonparty is required
to provide discovery is a deposition subpoena." (Code Civ. Proc.,
§2020.010, subd. (b)). “A deposition subpoena may command any of the following:
…. (c)The attendance and the testimony of the deponent, as well as the
production of business records, other documents, electronically stored
information, and tangible things, under Article 5 (commencing with Section 2020.510).”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)
“If the deponent is an organization, the subpoena shall
describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is
requested. The subpoena shall also advise the organization of its duty to make
the designation of employees or agents who will attend the deposition, as
described in Section 2025.230.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.310, subd. (e).)
“If a deponent on whom a deposition subpoena has been served
fails to attend a deposition or refuses to be sworn as a witness, the court may
impose on the deponent the sanctions described in Section 2020.240.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2025.440, subd. (b).)
“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce
any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the
deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition
subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order
compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).)
This motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (b).)
The
parties’ respective positions can be found in their filings, including the
separate statements. The Court’s rulings on each request are set forth below.
In general, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the categories and documents at
issue are discoverable but also agrees they must be subject to reasonable
limits.
Plaintiff seeks to depose Defendant’s person most
knowledgeable on a number of subjects.
Category No. 1: Defendant shall produce a PMK as to
all repairs to the Subject vehicle, including attempts to diagnose its problems
and time spent diagnosing its problems.
Category No. 2: Defendant shall produce a PMK as to
all Technical Service Bulletins (“TSB”) applicable to the subject vehicle.
Category No. 3: Defendant shall produce a PMK as to
why the TSBs in Category No. 2 were issued.
Category No. 4: Defendant shall produce a PMK as to
the process by which TSBs are issued, including all criteria, data, and
information relied upon.
Category No. 5: Defendant shall produce a PMK as to
all recalls applicable to the Subject Vehicle, including superseded recalls.
Category No. 6: Defendant shall produce a PMK as to
why the recalls in Category No. 5 were issued.
Category No. 7: Defendant shall produce a PMK as to
Defendant’s decision not to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Category No. 8: Defendant shall produce a PMK as to
Defendant’s policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests in
California for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act, for the period from
the date Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle to the present.
Category No. 9: Defendant shall produce a PMK as to
Defendant’s warranty policies and procedures pertaining to the Subject vehicle,
repairs, and warranty repairs reimbursement for the period from the date
Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle to the filling of this lawsuit.
Category No. 10: Defendant shall produce a PMK as to
all warranties that accompanied the Subject Vehicle at the time of purchase by
Plaintiff.
Category No. 11: Defendant shall produce a PMK as to
any repair orders and invoices for the Subject Vehicle, as well as Defendant’s
warranty policy and procedure manual provided to its authorized repair
facilities in California from the date of purchase to the present but shall not
be required to produce a PMK as to the full spectrum of repair procedures
consulted and followed during the repairs for the Subject Vehicle where they
are not included in the foregoing.
Category No. 12:
Defendant shall produce a PMK as to any repair orders and invoices for
the Subject Vehicle, as well as Defendant’s warranty policy and procedure
manual provided to its authorized repair facilities but shall not be required
to produce a PMK as to the full spectrum of diagnostic procedures consulted and
followed during the repairs for the Subject Vehicle where they are not included
in the foregoing.
Category No. 13: Defendant shall produce a PMK as to
the names of anyone involved communications with the dealer, factory
representative, or call center concerning the Subject Vehicle, as well as
anyone familiar with warranty claims submitted to Defendant and repair orders
and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.
Category No. 14: Defendant shall produce a PMK as to
the name of the employer of any individuals in Category No. 13.
Category No. 15: The Court denies the motion as to
this category which is overly broad and unduly burdensome in the context of
this case.
Category No. 16: The Court denies the motion as to
this category which is overly broad and unduly burdensome in the context of
this case.
Category No. 17: The Court denies the motion as to
this category which is overly broad and unduly burdensome in the context of
this case.
Category No. 18: Defendant shall produce a PMK as its
ability to produce Harry, the customer service representative associated with
the failure to repurchase the Subject Vehicle, for deposition.
Category No. 19: Defendant shall produce a PMK as to
the full name and address of Harry.
Category No. 20: Defendant shall produce a PMK as to
the full name and address of Harry’s employer.
Category No. 21: The Court denies the motion as to
the category. Plaintiff has not
supported what Document ID 5323386 is or responded to Defendant’s objection
that it is not limited to the defects at issue.
Category No. 22: The Court denies the motion as to
the category. Plaintiff has not
supported what Document ID 697384 is or responded to Defendant’s objections
that it is not limited to the defects at issue.
Request No. 1: Defendant shall produce all documents
related to the warranty history and warranties the accompanied the Subject
Vehicle, repair orders and invoices concerning the Subject Vehicle,
communications with the dealer, factory representative, or call center concerning
the Subject Vehicle, warranty claims submitted to or approved by Defendant
concerning the Subject Vehicle, and the purchase contract for the Subject
Vehicle. Defendant shall not be required to produce documents related to the
Subject Vehicle outside of these categories.
Request No. 2: Defendant shall produce all responsive
documents.
Request No. 3: Defendant shall produce all responsive
documents.
Request No. 4: Defendant shall produce all responsive
documents.
Request No. 5: Defendant shall produce all responsive
documents.
Request No. 6: Defendant shall produce all responsive
documents reflecting policies and procedures for evaluating customer requests
for Song-Beverly Act repurchases in California, which policies and procedures
were in place from the date Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle to the
present. Defendant shall not be required to produce emails.
Request No. 7: Defendant shall produce the warranty
policy and procedure manual provided by Defendant to its authorized repair
facilities within the state of California for the period from the date
Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle to the present. Defendant shall not be
required to produce other responsive documents.
Request No. 8: Defendant shall produce the warranty
policy and procedure manual provided by Defendant to its authorized repair
facilities within the state of California for the period from the date
Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle to the present. Defendant shall not be
required to produce other responsive documents.
Request No. 9: Defendant shall produce all documents
necessary to identify the individuals who are the subject of the request.
Request No. 10: Defendant shall produce all documents
necessary to identify the individuals who are the subject of the request.
Request No. 11: Defendant shall not be required to
produce responsive documents that are not covered by another granted request.
Request No. 12: Defendant shall not be required to
produce responsive documents that are not covered by another granted request.
Request No. 13: Defendant shall not be required to
produce responsive documents that are not covered by another granted request.
Request No. 14: Defendant shall produce all
responsive documents.
Request No. 15: Defendant shall produce all
responsive documents.
Request No. 16: Defendant shall produce all
responsive documents.
Request No. 17: The Court denies the motion as to these
documents. Plaintiff has not supported
what Document ID 5323386 is or responded to Defendant’s objection that it is
not limited to the defects at issue.
Request No. 18: The Court denies the motion as to these
documents. Plaintiff has not supported
what Document ID 697384 is or responded to Defendant’s objections that it is
not limited to the defects at issue.