Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00740, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00740, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00740 Hearing Date: September 6, 2023 Dept: C

godinez, et al. v. general motors

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00470

HEARING: 9/6/23 @ 9:30 AM

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s further response to Request for Production (set one) pursuant to CCP § 2031.310.

Background

On June 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant General Motors for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act for failure to repair or repurchase Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

Legal Standard

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).)

Meet and Confer

The Court finds that the parties adequately met and conferred.

Discussion

Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-14, and 16-37.

Requests Nos. 1 and 2 seek all documents identified in Defendant’s Responses to Interrogatories. Request No. 3 seeks documents related to Defendant’s Answer. Requests Nos. 5, 6, 8, and 12-14 seek documents related to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Request No. 9 seeks documents related to Plaintiffs’ request for refund. Request No. 11 seeks documents related to the communication between Plaintiffs and Defendant. Requests Nos. 16-27, 30, and 31 seek documents related to Defendant’s lemon law policies and procedures. Requests Nos. 28 and 29 seek documents related to Defendant’s call center policies and procedures. Request No. 32 and 36 seeks documents related to generalized statistics. Requests Nos. 33 and 37 seek documents related to similar vehicles. Request No. 34 seeks all technical service bulletins (TSB) applicable to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Request No. 35 seeks all documents related to recalls concerning Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

This Court will not require a privilege log as to any request.

Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 1 and 2 because their responses fail to identify which documents are responsive to the Requests.

Defendant has adequately responded to Requests Nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11-14 because this Court will not compel Defendant to create a privilege log as to any of Plaintiffs’ requests. Defendant identified non-privileged responsive documents or indicated that after a diligent search it did not possess or control responsive documents to each Request. Thus, Plaintiffs’ requests for further responses to Requests Nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11-14 are denied.

Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 16-27, 30, and 31 because these requests seek documents within the scope of discovery. Defendant produced no documents to these requests. The Requests are overbroad as to time. However, Defendant’s lemon law policies and procedures from the date of purchase to the filing of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit are within the scope of discovery because they are relevant to proving whether Defendant followed its policies and procedures as to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Therefore, Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 16-27, 30, and 31 with the limitation that it shall produce responsive documents published from the date of purchase to the date of filing.

Defendant has adequately responded to Requests Nos. 28 and 29 because these requests are outside the scope of discovery. Here, the only cause of action in the pleadings is for violation of the Song-Beverly Act. The basis of Song-Beverly is that Plaintiffs’ vehicle had defects and nonconformities and (1) Defendant was not able to conform the vehicle to the applicable warranties within a reasonable number of attempts and failed to replace the vehicle or make restitution; (2) Defendant failed to service or repair the vehicle so as to conform to the applicable warranties within 30 days; (3) Defendant failed to make available to its authorized service and repair facilities sufficient literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period; and (4) the vehicle was not suitable for its intended use due to the defects that manifested. The Court fails to see how information relating to Defendant’s customer service number is relevant to this lawsuit. Thus, Plaintiffs’ requests for further responses to Requests Nos. 28 and 29 are denied.

Defendant has adequately responded to Requests Nos. 32 and 36 because the requests are not relevant to the issues of the case and seek only general information that cannot be particularized to information relevant to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Thus, Plaintiffs’ requests for further responses to Requests Nos. 32 and 36 are denied.

Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 33 and 37 because these requests seek documents within the scope of discovery. Defendant produced no documents to these requests. The Requests are overbroad as to scope because they seek documents related to vehicles outside of California. Therefore, Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 33 and 37 with the limitation that it shall produce responsive documents for California vehicles.

As to Request No. 34, the parties are ordered to meet and confer to narrow the list to those TSBs which pertain to defects Plaintiffs allege their vehicle suffered from.

Defendant has adequately responded to Request No. 35 because it states in its response that there are no responsive documents because there have been no recalls for Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for further response to Request No. 35 is denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Their Requests for Production is GRANTED in part and DENIED in party as set forth above.