Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 21STCV30793, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV30793, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV30793 Hearing Date: November 8, 2023 Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE: November 8, 2023 TRIAL DATE: January 8, 2024

CASE: Yuriria Cerezo Torres v. General Motors LLC

CASE NO.: 21STCV30793

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY ORDER

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Yuriria Cerez Torres

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors LLC

I. Background

This is a “lemon law” action concerning powertrain defects in a 2020 Chevrolet Traverse (the “Vehicle”). On August 19, 2021, Plaintiff, Yuriria Cerezo Torres, filed a Complaint against Defendant, General Motors LLC, after Defendant failed to repair the Vehicle pursuant to written expressed warranty for the Vehicle and did not honor its obligations under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

On May 18, 2023, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further verified responses and documents to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 16 and 19. Pursuant to that order, on June 27, 2023, Defendant served unverified further responses and further produced documents. Plaintiff took issue with the further responses and document production and sent Defendant a meet and confer letter.

On July 27, 2023, after not having received a response to her meet and confer letter, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel Defendant’s compliance with the Court’s May 18, 2023, discovery order. Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendant.

On October 26, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition. The opposition indicates that Defendant served further supplemental responses on September 14, 2023 that are code compliant. As such, Defendant contends the motion is moot.

On November 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

II. Legal Standard

If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).)

The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Misuses of the discovery process include failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

III. Discussion

Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant’s compliance with the Court’s May 18, 2023 discovery order for three reasons. First, Defendant did not provide verified further responses on June 27, 2023 (see Motion, Liu Decl., Ex. 2) or September 14, 2023 (see Opposition, Pappas Decl., Ex A). “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Second, Defendant did not produce all documents as required by the Court’s May 18, 2023 order. Generally, a court is at a tremendous disadvantage in determining whether all responsive documents have been produced. Here, however, Plaintiff provides compelling evidence that responsive documents have not been produced. For example, Plaintiff points out that Defendant produced lists of two engineering works orders concerning the powertrain defect, but Defendant did not produce the work orders themselves in their supplement production. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant served illegible documents. Defendant does not counter these points in their opposition.

Finally, Defendant’s further supplemental statement of compliance is not Code-compliant. A statement of compliance under section 2031.220 has two parts: (1) the responding party “shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part,” and (2) “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.”¿¿¿ Here, in response to Request for Production, Nos. 16 and 19, Defendant confusingly states that “it has complied ... in whole” and “that it has complied in part” with the Requests. Defendant’s further supplemental response does not state 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.” If what Defendant wanted to say was that it produced all responsive documents and then identified all responsive documents, it should have done so. Defendant did not. Instead, Defendant’s response is confusing and not code compliant.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant General Motors LLC is ordered to provide verified, Code-compliant responses and to produce all responsive documents to Request for Production Nos. 16 and 19 within 10 days of this order.

Should Plaintiff assert that Defendant failed to comply within the 10 day period, Plaintiff may bring a motion for imposition of daily monetary sanctions of $250 per day for each day of non-compliance. However, Plaintiff’s motion must be grounded on specific and discernable grounds, such as failure to provide verification.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated: November 8, 2023 ___________________________________

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court