Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV15134, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15134    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Teresa De Jesus Diaz (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 13-16 and 34-35 propounded on Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”)

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. The Court orders Defendant to provide, within 30 days of this order, (1) full and complete further responses and responsive documents to Defendant’s Requests for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 13-16 and 34-35. However, Defendant shall not be required to search for emails responsive to RFP Nos. 34 and 35.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $2,004.15. Defendant shall pay $2,004.15 to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of the issuance of this order.

Background

Plaintiff filed this action on June 28, 2023 against Defendant, alleging (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty; (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty; (3) violation of Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2; and (4) violation of Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2 – Tanner Consumer Protection Act.

On October 13, 2023, Plaintiff served on Defendant the discovery at issue. On November 10, 2023, Defendant served its responses on Plaintiff.

From December 8, 2023 to December 14, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant’s counsels met and conferred on the discovery at issue.

Plaintiff filed this motion on December 19, 2023. Defendant filed an opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Relevancy in Song-Beverly Act Actions

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.)

Requests for Production

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

“(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.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)

          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.)

Discussion

          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 documents are discoverable but also agrees they must be subject to reasonable limits.  Accordingly, as set forth below, the repurchases and customer complaint documents shall be limited to California, and the internal investigation of defects shall not include an email production.

Requests for Production

RFP No. 13: Defendant shall produce all responsive documents.  However, the production shall be limited to repurchases in California.

RFP No. 14: Defendant shall produce all responsive documents.  However, the production shall be limited to customer complaints in California.

RFP No. 15: Defendant shall produce all responsive documents.  However, the production shall be limited to customer complaints in California.

RFP No. 16: Defendant shall produce all responsive documents.  However, the production shall be limited to customer complaints in California.

RFP No. 34: Defendant shall produce all responsive documents but shall not be required to search for emails.

RFP No. 35: Defendant shall produce all responsive documents but shall not be required to search for emails.

Sanctions

          The Court awards attorney’s fees in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant.  The Court does so not because of any extraordinary conduct on the part of Defendant or its counsel, or to punish such behavior, but rather because of the mandatory nature of an award of attorney’s fees on behalf of the moving party under the applicable statutes.  The Court does not find that any of the statutory exceptions to an award of attorney’s fees are present here.

Plaintiff requests an hourly rate of $425.00 for attorney Nadia Yashar. The Court finds this rate to be reasonable.

          Plaintiff requests a total of 4.5 hours for Yashar. The Court finds this time expenditure to be reasonable. Thus, the total amount of fees is $1,912.50.

          Plaintiff requests $91.65 in costs associated with the filing of this motion. The Court finds these costs to be reasonable.

The Court therefore awards a total of $2,004.15 in fees and costs.