Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00585, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00585    Hearing Date: August 3, 2023    Dept: C

RODRIGUEZ v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00858

HEARING:  08/03/23

#2

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) is GRANTED in part, as limited by the Court below.

Defendant to give notice.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts a sole cause of action for Violation of the Song-Beverly Act- Breach of Express Warranty.

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (set one).

CCP § 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general.  The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration.  (CCP § 2031.310(b).) 

Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiffs’ 2015 GMC Sierra 1500 vehicle suffers from engine, transmission, and suspension defects, and that Defendant has been unable to repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts.

The discovery at issue concerns:  1) Defendant’s policies and procedures relied upon when handling vehicle repurchase or replacement requests and calculating repurchase offers. (RPD Nos. 16, and 19-32.); (2) Documents related to internal codes generated or utilized by Defendant, and similar consumer complaints and repurchases of other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiffs’ vehicle with the same or similar nonconformities. (RDP Nos 37-41 and 45-46.)

The court finds that Plaintiff adequately met and conferred.

The court finds that “all documents” is unreasonably overbroad.  “All documents” is not within the scope of discovery for a Song Beverly Case.  (Krotin v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 294, 303 - relevant evidence for proving Lemon Law claims consists of service records for plaintiff’s vehicle.)

The use of catch-all language such as “including, but not limited to” is also overbroad.

In the interests of judicial efficiency, rather than denying the motion and requiring Plaintiffs to re-draft more narrowly tailored Requests, the Court issues the following Order:  The Motion is GRANTED in part.  Within 30 days of this Order, Defendant shall provide copies of the following documents, which are in its possession, custody, and/or control to Plaintiff:

i.             Purchase or lease contracts concerning the Subject Vehicle, including any associated documents reflecting original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) or aftermarket equipment installed at the dealership, extended limited warranties (“ELW”) or service contracts, and any other writings signed by the Plaintiff at the point of sale.

ii.            Work orders, repair orders, and invoices (including accounting and warranty versions) for any maintenance, service and repair activity concerning the Subject Vehicle. 

iii.           Rental car or loaner agreements regarding alternate transportation provided during service or repair visits concerning the Subject Vehicle.

iv.           Records of communications with dealer personnel, and/or factory representatives and Defendant’s call center or customer assistance personnel concerning the Subject Vehicle.

v.            Warranty Claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the Subject Vehicle.

vi.           Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual or similar policies or claim-handling procedures published by Defendant from the date the Subject Vehicle was purchased or leased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

vii.         Defendant’s written statements of policy and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase or replacement pursuant to “Lemon Law” claims, including ones brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date the Subject Vehicle was purchased or leased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

viii.        Technical Service Bulletins and Recall Notices for vehicles purchased or leased in California for the same year, make, and model of the Subject Vehicle.

ix.           Copies of any repair instruction, bulletin, or other diagnostic/repair procedure identified in any of the repair order/invoice records for the Subject Vehicle.

If a party believes any of this information should be subject to a Protective Order, that party shall serve and file a Proposed Protective Order within 5 days of this Order and the parties shall meet and confer as to agreeable language for the same. The default will be the standard Protective Order provided by the LASC in its website.

The information may be provided to the opposing party in electronic form as a PDF at the option of the producing party.

Defendant shall serve verifications with the documents they produce.

Any additional requests for documents may only be propounded by stipulation and/or Court Order (via Motion upon showing good cause).

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in part, as limited by the court. 

Sanctions are DENIED.