Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV08871, Date: 2024-11-27 Tentative Ruling

This is a Song-Beverly action. Plaintiff Sandra Silviera (Plaintiff) purchased a 2021 Chevrolet Bolt EV (the Vehicle). Plaintiff alleges defendant General Motors, LLC (GM), the manufacturer and distributor of Vehicle, knew the Vehicle had battery defects at the time Plaintiff made the purchase.

On October 14, 2024, plaintiff Sandra Silviera (Plaintiff) filed this motion to compel defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 17, 38-41, 56, 61-64, 67-70, 73, 74. Plaintiff does not seek sanctions.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to requests for production of documents¿where an answer to the request is evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.¿ The motion “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)¿¿¿¿¿¿

Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)¿ The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)¿¿¿¿¿¿

Finally, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(3).)¿¿¿¿¿

In her motion, Plaintiff states:¿ “Plaintiff alleges that the Vehicle was sold to him [sic] with a defective battery that, among other things, could catch fire. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant was aware of the defective battery prior to Plaintiff’s purchase and intentionally concealed it to induce Plaintiff into purchasing a defective product. After Plaintiff discovered the defective nature of the battery, he [sic] sought to have it repaired pursuant the vehicle’s express warranty that accompanied the vehicle, but Defendant failed to repair the vehicle and failed to repurchase it in willful violation of Song-Beverly. [¶] To prove these allegations, Plaintiff requested documents seeking to establish Defendant’s knowledge of the battery defect, the extent of the defect, its cause, and Defendant’s inability to fix it.” (Mot., p. 1:6-13.)¿¿

Plaintiff now seeks a further response to Request for Production, Nos. 17, 38-41, 56, 61-64, 67-70, 73, 74.¿ The discovery requests fall into four general categories:

(1) those relating to recalls issued, or in the process of being issued for 2017 through 2022 model year Chevrolet Bolt vehicles (Request No. 17);

(2) those relating to complaints by owners and lessees of 2017 through 2022 model year Chevrolet Bolt vehicles (Request Nos. 38-41);

(3) all documents which refer, relate to or concern the investigations referenced in various recalls N212343880 involving “experts from GM and LG” which identified the root cause of the battery defects in 2017 through 2022 model year Chevrolet Bolt vehicles (Request No. 56); and

(4) those relating to GM’s internal investigations, analysis and publications of battery defects plaguing the Vehicle (Request Nos. 61-74).

The parties have the court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order re: Song-Beverly Discovery (“Addendum”).¿ The court addresses each production request with the Addendum in mind.¿

Category 1 (Request No. 17): All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern any recalls issued, or in the process of being issued for 2017 through 2022 model year Chevrolet Bolt vehicles (this Request includes, but is not limited to, all documents giving rise to the issuance of the recalls and the recalls themselves).

Court’s Ruling: DENIED. The language “refer, relate to or concern any recalls issued, or in the process of being issued for 2017 through 2022 model year Chevrolet Bolt vehicles” is overbroad and vague.

Category 2 (Request Nos. 38-41): “those relating to complaints by owners and lessees of 2017 through 2022 model year Chevrolet Bolt vehicles”

Ruling: Request No. 38 (battery) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff may obtain the documents relating to complaints by owners and lessees of vehicles purchased in California of the same make, model, and year as the subject Vehicle and further limited to the battery defects Plaintiff encountered with the Vehicle. (Addendum 2(h).)

Request Nos. 39 (fires), 40 (charging system), and 41 (loss of power) are DENIED. Irrelevant.

Category 3 (Request No. 56): “all documents which refer, relate to or concern the investigations referenced in various recalls N212343880 involving “experts from GM and LG” which identified the root cause of the battery defects in 2017 through 2022 model year Chevrolet Bolt vehicles”

Ruling: DENIED. The request is vague and confusing. The request seeks documents from investigations that involved the use of experts who may have identified the root cause of certain battery defects. But it is unclear whether the request is seeking the opinions from unidentified experts or the results of the investigations, which investigations may have included information beyond the opinions of the experts. To be responsive, do the investigations have be referenced in the “various” recalls N212343880 and do those investigations have to involve experts and do those experts then have to identify the root cause of the battery defects? Or are documents responsive if the investigation identifies root causes, but the experts don’t?

Category 4 (Request Nos. 61-74): “those relating to GM’s internal investigations, analysis and publications of battery defects plaguing the Vehicle”

Ruling: GRANTED in part. The request is overbroad. Plaintiff may obtain discovery for vehicles purchased in California of the same year, make, and model as the subject Vehicle, and further limited to the battery defects Plaintiff encountered with the Vehicle. (Addendum 2(h).)

The motion is Granted in Part. Defendant General Motors, LLC is ordered to serve a further response to Request Nos. 38, and 61-74 within 45 days of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court