Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV13736, Date: 2024-06-17 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: June 17, 2024

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

Case No.: 23STCV00366 

Matter: Motions to Compel Further Responses (2x)

Moving Party: Plaintiff Miguel Hernandez

Responding Party: Defendant General Motors LLC

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion as to Requests for Production is granted in part.

The Motion as to Special Interrogatories is placed off calendar.

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 Miguel Hernandez seeks to compel further responses to his requests for production, set one, and special interrogatories, set one, propounded on Defendant General Motors, LLC.  

1. Special Interrogatories 

The Motion as to special interrogatories has no opposition or reply filed.  The Court assumes this Motion is no longer at issue and is, thus, placed off calendar.  If it is still at issue, the Court would grant the Motion because it is unopposed and would require further responses within 30 days.

2. Requests for Production

Requests for production nos. 1-3, 6-9, 13-17, 19, 31, 33-45, 51, 52, 56 and 57 are at issue.  

The Motion is granted as to request nos. 1-3, 6-9, 13-16, and 19, which essentially seek documents pertaining to the circumstances of the subject vehicle itself, as well as communications, recalls and TSBs.  GM’s objections are mostly baseless, and GM is required to provide documents that are in the possession of its dealer.  If a privilege applies, then a privilege log must be provided.

The Motion is denied as to request no. 17, which seeks all documents sent to dealers describing any warranty repairs for the subject vehicle.  This is overbroad and overburdensome. 

The Motion is denied as to request nos. 31 and 33, which seek all call center and hotline documents without a scope as to time, subject, or location.  This is far overbroad and overburdensome.

The Motion is denied as to request nos. 34-36, which seek all documents related to efforts to reduce repairs and reacquired vehicles.  This too is overbroad.  

The Motion is denied as to request nos. 37-45, which seek all complaints and related documents pertaining to other vehicles of the same make and model that experienced certain defects.  This is not commensurate with the scope of this litigation, and the requests are not appropriately narrowed. 

The Motion is denied as to request nos. 51-52, which are duplicative of request no. 9.

The Motion is denied as to request no. 56, which seeks: “All DOCUMENTS given to Teleperformance to investigate and/or evaluate whether a vehicle qualifies for repurchase or replacement under The Song-Beverly Warranty Act, including training manuals, videos, and flow charts.”  This too is overbroad and overburdensome.

The Motion is denied as to request no. 57, which seeks Defendant’s operating agreement with Teleperformance.  This is not sufficiently directed at discovering relevant information.

In sum, the Motion is granted in part as set forth herein.  Further responses are to be provided 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.