Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2022-00022385-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 31, 2023

09/01/2023  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 Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00022385-CU-BC-CTL ALAND VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 03/13/2023

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC violated California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act by failing to repurchase or replace Plaintiff BRITTNEY KATHERINE ALAND's 2021 Chevrolet Trailblazer after GM's authorized repair facilities were unable to conform the vehicle to warranty within a reasonable number of repair attempts.

Plaintiff alleges the Subject Vehicle has been repaired under warranty by GM's authorized repair facilities on at least seven occasions. Plaintiff alleges that the Subject Vehicle has a persistent and pervasive braking defects. (See Declaration of Jordan G. Cohen in support of Plaintiff's motion to compel, ¶ 4.) On November 10, 2022, Plaintiff served written discovery – including the subject Request for Production of Documents, Set One – on GM. (Cohen Decl., ¶ 6.) GM served written responses to Plaintiff's RFP on December 12, 2022, and verifications to those responses on January 4, 2023. (Cohen Decl., ¶ 7.) The discovery can be divided into two general categories: - RFPs 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 38 seek documents related to GM's policies and procedures for handling breach of warranty claims - RFPs 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, 42, 44, and 45 seek documents regarding GM's knowledge re: the existence of similar engine defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

As typical of many responses in these type of cases, the manufacturer attempts to limit discovery to the specific vehicle at issue in the litigation. All such discovery related specifically to plaintiff's vehicle has been produced. However, the relevance of information beyond plaintiff's vehicle relates to plaintiff's claim for a civil penalty. A manufacturer may be subject to a civil penalty if the purchaser proves that the manufacturer's failure to repurchase their vehicle was willful. (See Civ. Code § 1794(c).) Among the factors to be considered by the jury in determining whether to award a civil penalty are: (1) whether the manufacturer knew the vehicle had not been repaired within a reasonable period or after a reasonable number of attempts; and (2) whether the manufacturer had a written policy on the requirement to repair or replace. (Id. at pp. 185–186.) Plaintiff contends that Requests for Production Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, 42, 44, and 45 seek documents evidencing the existence of similar engine defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff's 2021 Chevrolet Trailblazer.

Evidence of similar defects is relevant and discoverable Information regarding similar defects in other vehicles is the proper subject of an inquiry regarding a manufacturer's willful failure to repurchase a vehicle. (See Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 185- 186.); see also Jensen v. BMW of North America, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2019) 328 F.R.D. 557, 562–563.) Accordingly, whether the same or similar defects were reported to GM in other cars of the same make, model, and Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2948658  41 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ALAND VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00022385-CU-BC-CTL year as the Subject Vehicle is relevant to whether GM knew that it would be unable to conform Plaintiff's vehicle to warranty within reasonable number of repair attempts. (See Jensen, supra, 328 F.R.D. at pp.

562-563.) The documents sought by Plaintiff are relevant to GM's knowledge of the similar defects and whether it timely could conform the Subject Vehicle to warranty and whether it acted willfully.

Defendants also object based upon 'trade secret'. First, GM's 'trade secrets' concerns should be allayed by Plaintiff's entry into a stipulated protective order regarding this matter (entered by this Court on March 7, 2023). Further it is not clear that GM has established a 'trade secret'. Under CUTSA, a 'Trade Secret' means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

(Civil Code § 3426.1(d).) These elements have not been clearly established with respect to this discovery.

RFP Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 38 seek documents related to GM's policies and procedures for handling breach of warranty claims. These documents would be relevant to the civil penalties.

Request for Production Nos. 18, 25, 26, and 27 seek documents evidencing GM's communications regarding the Subject Vehicle, including its communications with its dealerships (including Technical Assistance Center ['TAC'] cases opened by GM for the Subject Vehicle and its agreements with its dealerships regarding their performance of warranty repairs), internal communications, and communications with Plaintiff.

GM argues in opposition that many of the requests, (specifically Request Nos. 29-34, 41-42, and 44-45) impermissibly put the onus on GM to determine the scope of the so-called 'non-conformities' that GM argues: 'Plaintiff has alleged. Plaintiff, not GM, must specify the non-conformity about which they are complaining. (See Moore v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 2, 2016) 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2013, at *3 ('That is counsel's job [to write code-compliant requests].')).' The requests herein are limited to conformities to the 'braking systems.' Thus, they do not appear to so overbroad that GM is required to determine the issues for discovery. To be clear, the limit the discovery to braking systems.

No sanctions are noticed or requested.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2948658  41