Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2023-00006886-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPT.:
EVENT DATE:
EVENT TIME:
HALL OF JUSTICE
TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 25, 2024
01/26/2024 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) 37-2023-00006886-CU-BC-CTL MORENO VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 08/03/2023
Plaintiff EVANGELINA MORENO's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production is DENIED as set forth below.
This is a 'lemon law' action arising from the Plaintiff's January 10, 2019, purchase of a Certified Pre-Owned 2016 Cadillac. The original Complaint was filed on February 16, 2023. A First Amended Complaint has been filed on September 15, 2023. The FAC alleges three statutory causes of action based upon the Song-Beverly Act as well as Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment; and Violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The FAC seeks punitive damages.
The Court notes that there is a demurrer set for April 5, 2024 to the Fraud and CLRA causes of action as well as a Motion to Strike Punitive Damages.
Discovery Dispute On May 23, 2023, Plaintiff propounded 86 requests for production, 29 of the requests which are at issue in this motion. GM served responses on June 21, 2023.
Plaintiff filed this motion on July 28, 2023. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel seeks supplementation of Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 30, 32, 33, 35, 39, 40, 41, 48, 53, 55, 56, 65, 69, 70, 73, 75, 76, and 79.
Although Plaintiff's Motion purports to raise issues regarding Request for Production Nos. 1-3 7, and 11, GM has already produced any responsive documents in its possession, custody, and control or informed Plaintiff that it was not currently aware of the existence of such documents.
Requests Nos. 1-3, 7, and 11: DENIED These requests are specific to Plaintiff's Cadillac and seek all documents 'regarding' Plaintiff's Cadillac.
Based on the representation of GM in the Opposition, GM produced the responsive documents within its possession, custody, and control GM contends that it has responded. GM identified documents, including the Vehicle Summary, the New Vehicle Invoice, the Global Warranty Vehicle History Report (which details any repairs to the Subject Vehicle under warranty), any Service Request Activity Report(s) (which details any communications regarding the Subject Vehicle), any repair orders that GM may have obtained from GM-authorized dealerships who may have serviced, maintained, or repaired the Subject Vehicle, Repair Order Details, copies of those bulletins for any field action, including recalls, applicable to the Subject Vehicle, a copy of the Service Manual applicable to vehicles of the same year, make and model as the Subject Vehicle (if available), and a list of TSBs and ISBs applicable to the Subject Vehicle.
As to Request No. 3, plaintiff requests 'All investigations, reports, and/or studies conducted by YOU and/or on YOUR behalf regarding the root cause or failure analysis of any parts that were repaired or replaced on the SUBJECT VEHICLE.' In response, GM states it is not aware of or in possession of documents responsive to such request.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3004760 27 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: MORENO VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00006886-CU-BC-CTL Plaintiff states that the responses are inadequate and states that GM has not produced all documents.
Plaintiff contends that the responses are not 'code compliant.' Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.210 requires: '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.' The responses appear to indicate that all documents in possession, custody or control will be produced.
The responses appear to be sufficient.
Requests 12, 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 30, 32, 33, 35, 39, 40, 41, 48 Request No. 12: DENIED All pre-sale or pre-purchase DOCUMENTS that YOU made available to purchasers or lessees concerning the disclosure of a problem, failures, malfunctions, or defect(s) regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECT(s) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES equipped with the 8-speed transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
According to the definitions: 'The term 'TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S)' shall be understood to mean such defects to the 8-speed transmission, which result in symptoms, including hesitation and/or delayed acceleration; harsh and/or hard shifting; jerking, shuddering, and/or juddering; symptoms requiring reprogramming the transmission control module (TCM) and/or powertrain control module (PCM); malfunction, failure and/or replacement of the 8-speed transmission; and/or any other similar concern identified in the repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.' The term 'transmission defect' is used throughout the FAC to describe plaintiff's issues, and it is not clear what specific transmission defect is alleged.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: DENIED All DOCUMENTS, emails, concerning any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES equipped with the 8-speed transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: DENIED All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, regarding any internal investigation regarding root cause efforts, problem-solving efforts, or efforts to identify any actual or potential problems, failures, malfunctions, conditions, and/or defects regarding the 8-speed transmission in the GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: DENIED All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, regarding any communications with other entities involved in root cause efforts, problem-solving efforts or efforts to identify any actual or potential problem(s), failure(s), malfunction(s), condition(s) and/or defect(s) regarding the 8-speed transmission in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES [Emphasis added] REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: DENIED All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, regarding when any member of YOUR Recall committee or task force or their equivalent first learned, became aware of, or was notified about, TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES, or problems or potential problems with the 8-speed transmission in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: DENIED All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails to or from YOUR agents, representatives, engineers, employees or part suppliers concerning common parts failures for the 8-speed transmission in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: DENIED All Failure Mode and Effects Analysis reports (or comparable analyses) regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES equipped with the 8-speed transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: DENIED All vehicle warranty history reports for GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES that YOU repurchased or replaced with two (2) or more warranty repair attempts to the 8-speed transmission.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3004760 27 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: MORENO VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00006886-CU-BC-CTL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: DENIED All vehicle warranty history reports for GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES that YOU repurchased or replaced that you were unable to repair within 30 days for concerns regarding the 8-speed transmission.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: DENIED All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, concerning any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, service messages, technical service bulletins and recalls, concerning the TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES equipped with the 8-speed transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: DENIED All DOCUMENTS regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES equipped with the 8-speed transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: DENIED All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, concerning any fixes for the TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES that are equipped with the 8-speed transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: DENIED All DOCUMENTS, including power points, memoranda, reports, warnings, investigations, assessments, lessons learned summaries or reports, quality information reports, engineering reviews, summaries, executive reviews, executive reports, or any equivalent thereof, that were prepared by any of YOUR engineers or suppliers, concerning the TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES equipped with the 8-speed transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: DENIED All DOCUMENTS, including emails, regarding software release notes for all software released for the TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES equipped with the 8-speed Transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
As to Request Nos. 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 30, 32, 33, 35, 39, 40, 41, 48 the Court recognizes generally that 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 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 would be relevant to GM's knowledge of similar defects and prove whether or not GM knew that it could not timely conform the Subject Vehicle to warranty and, therefore, whether it willfully failed to comply with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
(Assuming that the Fraud allegations survive the demurrer challenge, the discovery would also be relevant to concealment allegations in the FAC.) Under CCP Section 2017.020, this Court can limit the scope of discovery in certain circumstances. 'The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . . . ' by weighing the probative value of the materials against the 'cost, time, expense and disruption of normal business resulting from an order compelling the discovery . . . if [it] is ordered.' Similarly, CCP Sections 2031.310(g) (3) and (4) provide that the court may limit the extent of discovery if the likely burden or expense of proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit.
However, the documents as requested are overbroad. Plaintiff seeks all documents concerning Plaintiff's 'transmission defects' in any vehicle equipped with the same transmission or engine as the Subject Vehicle. The requests are not limited to the plaintiff's year, make and model.
Further, the requests are not clear. Nor are the requests limited to the specific transmission or engine problems at issue in this litigation. Song-Beverly Act requires that plaintiff's specific vehicle, based on its specific repair history, had nonconformities covered by the warranty that substantially impaired its use, value, or safety, which were not repaired within a reasonable number of repair visits. While the words 'transmission defects' are peppered throughout the pleading, the specific transmission issue involved in this litigation is not discussed. Broadly requiring discovery for every transmission issue involving multiple GM vehicles is overbroad – at least at this stage of the litigation where the specific problem is not Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3004760 27 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: MORENO VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00006886-CU-BC-CTL identified.
Request Nos. 53, 55, 56, 65, 69, 70 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: DENIED All DOCUMENTS that YOU use or have used, since 2016, to evaluate consumer requests for repurchases or replacements pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: DENIED All training manuals and/or other DOCUMENTS relating to the training given to YOUR employees, agents, or representatives, since 2016, in connection with handling consumer lemon law repurchase requests.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: DENIED The Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals published by YOU and provided to YOUR authorized repair facility(s), within the state of California, from 2016 to the present. [This request will be understood to include production of any versions of such manual as distributed to YOUR dealerships during the relevant time frame.] REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: DENIED All LEMON LAW DOCUMENTS published by YOU and provided to YOUR employees, agents, and representatives.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 69: DENIED All point-of-sale training materials that you provided to your authorized dealers regarding the sale of GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES equipped with the 8-speed Transmission from one year prior to Plaintiff purchasing SUBJECT VEHICLE until the date of purchase.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70: DENIED All point-of-sale training materials that you provided to your authorized dealers regarding Plaintiff purchasing the subject vehicle until the date of purchase Request Nos. 73, 75, 76, 79 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73: DENIED All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, regarding any communications between YOU and any government agency or entity (e.g., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA'), the Environmental Protection Agency ('EPA'), or any other similar government agency) regarding TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75: DENIED All Early Warning Reports ('EWR') YOU submitted to NHTSA concerning GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76: DENIED All Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation ('TREAD') reports YOU submitted concerning GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79: DENIED All DOCUMENTS, including analyses and reports, that YOU provided to or received from part suppliers concerning the TRANSMISSION DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES equipped with the 8-speed transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
As stated above with respect to other discovery requests, these requests are overbroad in seeking documents related to all transmission defects in any vehicle. Without additional specificity regarding the specific issue involving the transmission in plaintiff's vehicle, the request is vague and over-inclusive.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3004760 27