Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV27277, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: April 21, 2023

Case Name: Penaloza v. General Motors, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV06656

Matter: Motions to Compel Further Responses (2x)

Moving Party: Plaintiff Zuleyma Penaloza

Responding Party: Defendant General Motors LLC

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motions are granted in part.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is a lemon law action.  On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff Zuleyma Penaloza filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) breach of implied warranty, (2) breach of express warranty, and (3) concealment.  On November 30, 2022, the Court sustained a demurrer to the concealment claim, without leave to amend.

Plaintiff now seeks to compel further responses to her special interrogatories and requests for production propounded on Defendant General Motors LLC. 

1. Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to special interrogatory (“SI”) nos. 14, 40-45 and 55.

The Motion is granted as to SI no. 14 because Defendant’s reference to documents to identify repairman is too general.  Defendant must either specifically identify the individuals or specifically reference all applicable documents.

The Motion is denied as to SI nos. 40 and 41 because these interrogatories seek information about all supervising individuals without limiting the information to the subject vehicle.

The Motion is granted as to SI no. 42 because Defendant does not directly or specifically identify its investigation into whether the vehicle had been properly repaired.  Again, Defendant merely provides a general response with a general reference to documents.

The Motion is granted as to SI no. 43 because Defendant does not specifically or directly provide a response identifying investigatory witnesses.

The Motion is granted as to SI nos. 44 and 45 because Defendant has not specifically referenced the documents and witnesses at issue.

The Motion is granted as to SI no. 55 because Defendant does not directly provide the number of days the vehicle was repaired.

Further responses are to be provided within twenty days.

2. Requests for Production 

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to its request for production nos. 1-3, 9, 13-16, 33, 37-60, 66-69, 72 and 73.

The Motion is granted as to request nos. 1-3, 9, and 13-16 because these requests fairly seek all repair, TSB, and statement documents for the subject vehicle and the limited response is inappropriate.  Defendant should produce all applicable documents from its authorized repair facilities.  

The Motion is denied as to request no. 33, which is overbroad to the extent seeking all documents relating to Defendant’s technical service line.

The Motion is denied as to request nos. 37-60 because these requests are overbroad and overburdensome to the extent seeking documents about vehicles other than the subject vehicle.

The Motion is denied as to request nos. 66-67, which are duplicative of request no. 9.

The Motion is granted as to request no. 68, which fairly seeks special service messages for the subject vehicle.

The Motion is granted as to request nos. 69 and 72, which fairly seek repair directives and documents used in evaluating whether to repurchase a vehicle.

The Motion is denied as to request no. 73.  This request seeks an irrelevant operating agreement.

Further responses and documents are to be provided within twenty days.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.