Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV09207, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: September 12, 2023

Case Name: Valencia-Mendoza v. General Motors, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 23STCV03288

Matter: Motion to Compel PMK Deposition

Moving Party: Plaintiff Francisco Valencia-Mendoza

Responding Party: Defendant General Motors LLC

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion to Compel is 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.  Plaintiff Francisco Valencia-Mendoza seeks to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors, LLC’s PMK. 

There are 19 categories of testimony and 35 requests for production at issue. 

As to testimony, Defendant will produce a PMK for category nos. 1-4, 7, and 10.  The Motion is, therefore, denied as moot with respect to these categories.  

The Court will grant the Motion as to category no. 5, which pertains to “Questions relating to the process that is in place and has been in place for the last three years relating to YOUR evaluations of requests by YOUR customers to have vehicles repurchased pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1793.2, including but not limited to any policies and procedures regarding the repurchasing of SUBJECT VEHICLE due to TRANSMISSION DEFECT”.  However, other than the transmission defect for the subject vehicle, only generalized information need be provided. 

The Motion is denied as to category no. 6, which pertains to “Questions regarding the nature, extent, and substance of correspondence between YOU, and other persons or entities regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECT”.  This is far overbroad.

The Motion is granted as to category nos. 8, 9, and 12, which pertain to the nature of the transmission defect and repairs for this defect.  This is clearly relevant information.

The Motion is granted as to category no. 11, which pertains to “Questions regarding all REPAIR DOCUMENTS that YOU have issued to YOUR dealers and/or consumers regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECT or other non-conformities experienced by Plaintiff with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE”.   Defendant’s objections lack merit.

The Motion is denied as to category no. 13, which relates to Defendant’s third-party dispute program, the relevance of which is not apparent.  

The Motion is denied as to category no. 14, which pertains to “Questions regarding any communications concerning the TRANSMISSION DEFECT, including the cause of the TRANSMISSION DEFECT, all available remedies, and discussions of any and all modifications of YOUR vehicles and related parts provided to date, and the efficacy of those modifications”.  This is also overbroad and overburdensome.

The Motion is granted as to category no. 15, which relates to fixes for the transmission defect.  This is relevant and Defendant’s objections lack merit.

The Motion is granted as to category nos. 16-18, which pertain to Defendant’s policies for compliance with the Song-Beverly Act and how restitution would be calculated.  However, only generalized information needs to be provided.  

The Motion is granted as to category no. 19, which pertains to document preservation.  Defendant’s objections lack merit and are unsubstantiated.  

As to documents, the Motion is granted as to request nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,  6, and 12, which pertain to repair orders, warranty repair history, internal reports, correspondence, and records for the subject vehicle.  The objections, including lack of possession, lack merit.  

The Motion is granted as to request no. 7, which seeks all documents supporting Defendant’s affirmative defenses. 

The Motion is denied as to request no. 8 because Defendant states it will produce its service manual.  This is sufficient.  

The Motion is denied as to request no. 9 because it is somewhat leading in nature. 

The Motion is granted as to request no. 10, which pertains to documents issued as a result of the transmission defect.  

The Motion is denied as to request no. 11, which seeks expert opinions from other cases.

The Motion is denied as to request no. 13, which seeks contracts between Defendant and its authorized dealers.  

The Motion is granted as to request no. 14, which seeks diagnostic codes.  However, the information shall be narrowed to vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the subject vehicle.

The Motion is denied as to request nos. 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 28, and 31 because these requests encompass documents relating to individual vehicles other than the subject vehicle.  This is overbroad.  

The Motion is denied as to request nos. 17 and 18, which are also overbroad.

The Motion is granted as to request no. 19, which seeks documents relating to part modifications for the transmission defect in vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the subject vehicle.

The Motion is denied as to request no. 22 because this request is overbroad and the response was sufficient. 

The Motion is granted as to request no. 23, which relates to internal investigations.

The Motion is denied as to request nos. 25 and 34, which seek documents from other lawsuits.

The Motion is granted as to request no. 26, which seeks communications with parts suppliers.  

The Motion is granted as to request no. 27, which seeks documents relating to modifications.

The Motion is granted as to request nos. 29 and 30, which relate to fixes for the transmission.

The Motion is granted as to request no. 32, but is narrowed to documents applicable only to vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the subject vehicle.

The Motion is granted as to request no. 33, which relates to causes of any transmission defects.  

The Motion is denied as to request no. 35, which is overbroad.  

In sum, the Motion is granted in part as set forth herein.  The PMK deposition is to take place within 30 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.