Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01485, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV01485 Hearing Date: October 17, 2023 Dept: C
MEZA, ET AL. v. GENERAL
MOTORS LLC
CASE NO.: 22NWCV01485
HEARING: 10/17/23
#4
TENTATIVE RULING
I.
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further discovery
responses to Plaintiffs’’ first set of requests for production of documents is GRANTED
in part as to RFPs Nos. 37-41, 45-46.
II.
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further discovery
responses to Plaintiffs’’ first set of requests for production of documents is
DENIED without prejudice as to RFPs Nos. 16, 19-32.
III.
No sanctions are ordered.
Moving party to give notice.
This breach of warranty action was filed by Plaintiff MIGUEL
MEZA and JESUS MORON (Plaintiffs) on December 2, 2022. Plaintiffs’ complaint
assert the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act –
Breach of Express Warranty and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of
Implied Warranty.
Plaintiffs moves to compel further discovery and requests
monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,210.00.
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further discovery responses:
Meet and
Confer
The Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 2031.310 provides,
in pertinent part, the moving party shall include a meet and confer declaration
as provided in section 2016.040. (CCP § 2031.310(b).) The meet and confer
declaration “shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at
an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP §
2016.040.)
Here, Plaintiffs’
state that they sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant General Motors LLC
(Defendant) on April 17, 2023, outlining the deficiencies in its responses. (Thomas
Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. D.) On April 25, 2023, Defendant responded by identifying
some of the documents it had produced and promising to produce some documents
responsive to some of Plaintiffs’ request for production (RFP) subject to a
protective order. (Id. at ¶ 11, Exh. E.) However, Plaintiffs’ state that
Defendant for the most part reiterated its deficient responses and objections.
(Id.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ aver that on April 28, 2023, they signed
and served a Los Angeles County Superior Court Model Stipulated Protective
Order but Defendant has not provided additional documents subject to the
protective order. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ aver that they sent a second meet and
confer letter on May 2, 2023 and received no response from Defendant. Therefore,
the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ meet and confer efforts were sufficient per
CCP § 2031.310(b) and shall consider the motion on the merits.
Merits
Plaintiffs move for an order compelling further discovery
responses to Plaintiffs’’ first set of requests for production of documents.
The discovery at issue concerns: (1) documents relating to GM’s general
policies and procedures relied upon when handling vehicle repurchase or
replacement requests and calculating repurchase offers. (RFP Nos. 16, 19-32);
and (2) documents relating 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 (RFP Nos. 37-41, 45-46).
RFP Nos. 16, 19-32, 37-41, 45-46
Defendant responded that GM objects to “[t]his Request on
grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is
not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. GM also objects to this Request on
grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be
unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the
amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.
This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this
Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53
Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiffs are
entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely
unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also
objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and
trade secret information in the form of GM’s internal policies and procedures.
GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected
by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. No documents
will be produced.”
Here, Plaintiffs’ argue that RFPs Nos. 16, 19-32, are
relevant to the case because they will likely shed light on Defendant’s
understanding and interpretations of the Song-Beverly Act such that Defendant
did not act in good faith as it relates to Plaintiffs’ request for a vehicle
repurchase or repair. As to RFP Nos. 37-41, 45-46 Plaintiffs’ argue that these
documents are relevant because the codes and maintenance of warranty repair
information can provide insight into any instructions Defendant provides to its
authorized dealerships regarding the handling and frequency of particular
repairs and complaints to support Plaintiffs’ claim to civil penalties for
willful violation of the Song-Beverly Act.
Moreover, Plaintiffs’ argue that these documents will allow them to
assist Defendant by identifying search terms for any other discovery requests
and ensure Plaintiffs’ requests are even further particularized to expedite the
discovery process.
Additionally, Plaintiffs’ argue that Defendant’s objections
to all these requested documents are meritless and do not comply with CCP §
2031.240 because (1) Plaintiffs’ requests are reasonably particularized and
specific; (2) Defendant does not provide a privilege log to support privilege
objections; and (3) fails to provide a declaration or affidavit to establish
the cost or quantum of work that would be required to comply with the requests
at issue.
By contrast, Defendant argues that it has already produced
its warranty policy and procedure manual and the policies and procedure used to
evaluate lemon law claims and repurchase requests in response to RFPs No. 16,
19-32. Defendant argues further that had Plaintiffs’ properly met and
conferred, it would have agreed to produce other customer complaints within
their electronically store information database that are substantially similar
to Plaintiffs’ complaint concerning alleged defects, for vehicles purchases in
California of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle in response
to RFPs Nos. 45-46. Defendant also argues that the RFPs Nos. 37-41 are
overbroad and vague. In addition, Defendant asserts that all the requested
documents are trade secret material. Nonetheless, Defendant has not provided a
privilege log identifying the documents that cannot be produced.
Therefore, the requests to RFPs Nos. 16, 19-32 are denied. Defendant
is ordered to produce all responsive documents to RFPs Nos. 37-41, 45-46 and
provide a privilege log identifying which specific documents cannot be
produced.
Requests for Monetary Sanctions
Monetary sanctions may be imposed against a party or
attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further
responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(h).) However, sanctions are not
required if the Court finds that the party subjected to the sanctions acted
with substantial justification or that other circumstances exist that make the
imposition of the sanction unjust. (Id.)
Here, Plaintiffs’ request monetary sanctions in the amount
of $3,210.00. Plaintiffs’ counsel avers that he spent (1) 3.0 hours drafting
this instant motion including notice of motion, memorandum of points and
authorities, separate statement, declaration, and proposed order; (2)
anticipated an additional 2.0 hours reviewing Defendant’s opposition and
drafting a reply; and (3) anticipates an additional 2.0 hours to prepare and
attend the hearing on the motion for a total of 7.0 hours at an hourly rate of
$450.00 per hour. However, Plaintiffs’ motion was only granted in part and
Defendant’s indication that they have supplied most of the requested documents
in this present motion makes imposing sanction unjust.
Accordingly, Plaintiff MIGUEL MEZA and JESUS MORON’s request
for monetary sanctions is denied.