Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2022-00010460-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 19, 2023

10/20/2023  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00010460-CU-BC-CTL CISNEROS RAMOS VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 06/29/2023

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents is DENIED.

This is an action based on the Song-Beverly Act involving a 2018 GMC Sierra purchase in June, 2020.

On August 24, 2022, Plaintiff served 37 requests for production of documents on GM.

GM served Plaintiff with responses on July 13, 2023, with verifications on July 13, 2023 (Declaration of Jesse Valencia On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff sent GM a purported 'meet and confer' letter regarding GM's discovery responses. (Treybig Decl. Ex. 3). The letter demanded that GM withdraw its objections and supplement its previous production. (Plaintiff's letter did not even address Request Nos. 1-3, 16, and 33-35, which Plaintiff seeks to compel.) On May 12, 2023, GM responded to Plaintiff's letter, providing point by point responses as to its discovery responses and objections, and referred Plaintiff to specific documents produced in discovery.

(Valencia Decl., at ¶ 5 Ex. B.). GM also offered to participate in an informal discovery conference as a means to avoid motion practice. (Id.).

On June 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed his motion to compel on 28 out of 37 Requests for Production.

The Court first finds that plaintiff did not conduct an adequate 'meet and confer' prior to filing this motion. Plaintiff had an obligation to meet and confer with GM to try to resolve this discovery dispute before filing his motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450.) Merely sending a letter with positions etched in stone does not constitute a good faith 'meet and confer.' Rather, 'meet and confer' requires counsel to 'attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult and deliberate.' (Townsend v. Sup.Ct.

(EMC Mortg. Co.) (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1431, 1443).

The letter sent did not address all requests and declared GM's objections waived, and demanded that GM produce all manner of documents without objections.

On substance, this breach of warranty case is about Plaintiff's Sierra and repairs to that Sierra under warranty. Based on the representation of GM's counsel, GM has already produced multiple documents relevant to Plaintiff's breach of warranty claims.

Request Nos. 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-12, and 34-35, involve plaintiff's Sierra. These requests sought: (i) documents identified in GM's response to Plaintiff's first set of special interrogatories and form interrogatories; (Request Nos. 1-2), (ii) documents 'which evidence, support, refer, or relate to each of the affirmative defenses as set forth in [GM's] Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint'; (Request No. 3), (iii) all documents regarding any inspection, and repairs and services of the Vehicle (Request Nos. 5 and 8), (iv) documents related to 'Plaintiff's request for refund' (Request No. 9), (v) documents that evidence any 'CONTACT with any PERSON' (Request Nos. 11-12), and (vi) documents which evidence Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs) and recalls for 2018 GMC Sierra vehicles (Requests Nos. 34 and 35).

GM indicates it already produced responsive documents concerning Plaintiff's Sierra. Specifically, GM Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2973728  20 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CISNEROS RAMOS VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00010460-CU-BC-CTL states it produced the available responsive documents and directed Plaintiff to specific documents among its production (e.g., the Global Warranty History Report, Repair Order Details and Vehicle History, any Service Request Activity Report(s), sales brochures for the 2018 GMC Sierra, lists of TSBs and ISBs applicable to 2018 GMC Sierra vehicles, etc.), and where appropriate GM responded that there were no relevant responsive documents.

Request Nos. 16-31 seeks 'all DOCUMENTS' relating to GM's internal policies and procedures, including training materials, for how it generally handles other consumers' warranty claims and repurchase requests for other vehicles. The Court SUSTAINS the objection that these requests are OVERBROAD. These requests are overbroad in scope – seeking 'all documents,' without limitation, about every single warranty related policy or operating procedure.

Request Nos. 32-33 seek GM's internal analysis, investigations, communications, reports and design-related documents (including other consumer complaints and matters) about 'conditions, defects, or nonconformities' in vehicles other than Plaintiff's own Sierra. Documents about other vehicles or the design of the Sierra are irrelevant to plaintiff's pending claims.

Further, these Requests impermissibly put the onus on GM to determine the scope of the so[1]called 'non-conformities' that Plaintiff has alleged. Plaintiff, not GM, must specify the non-conformity about which he is complaining. (See Major v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2013, at *3 (Conn.

Super. Ct. Aug. 2, 2016) ('That is counsel's job [to write code-compliant requests].')). These requests broadly seek all documents relating to GM's internal analyses of the vaguely defined 'defects' in Sierra vehicles and all documents relating to other similar complaints in Sierra vehicles.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2973728  20