Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01733, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV01733 Hearing Date: November 7, 2023 Dept: C
Cynthia Soria-Valadez, et al. vs
General Motors LLC
NO.: 22NWCV01733
HEARING:
11/07/23
#3
TENTATIVE
ORDER
Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production is GRANTED in part.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Background
This is a lemon law case. Plaintiffs
Cynthia Soria-Valadez and Francisco Banuelos (“Plaintiffs”) were the purchasers
of a defective 2020 Chevrolet Trax (the “vehicle”) manufactured and warranted
by Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant” or “GM”). (Complaint, ¶ 11.)
Plaintiffs filed suit against
Defendant alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act in connection with
Plaintiffs’ vehicle. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the
purchase of the Subject Vehicle was accompanied by warranties by which Defendant
undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the vehicle or
to provide compensation if there was a failure of such performance. (Complaint,
¶ 7.) Plaintiff brought this action to either have Defendant repurchase or
replace the vehicle, under the Song-Beverly Act.
On February 24, 2023,
Plaintiffs propounded a First Set of Requests for Production on Defendant.
(Thomas Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. A.) The requests sought, among other things,
information regarding Plaintiffs’ vehicle, documents regarding how Defendant
responds to requests for repurchase of a vehicle, documents explaining the
various warranty, complaint and vehicle repair codes used in documents produced
by Defendant, and documents showing similar complaints from consumers of the
same year, make, and model as the Plaintiffs’ vehicle. (Thomas Decl., ¶¶ 5, 8;
Exh. A.) Defendant did not produce the information and Plaintiffs’ filed the
instant motion to compel.
Analysis
A. Meet
and Confer Requirement
On June 6, 2023, Plaintiffs followed up on their initial
meet and confer letter with a second letter which attempted to further explain
Plaintiffs’ Requests. (Thomas Decl., ¶ 12; Exh. F.) Defendant did not respond
to Plaintiffs’ second meet and confer letter. (Thomas Decl. ¶ 13.)
Accordingly,
Plaintiffs satisfied the meet and confer element.
B. Separate
Statement
A motion to compel
further responses requires a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 3.1345(a).) Plaintiff properly filed separate statements.
C.
Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Request for Production.
CCP
§ 2031.310(a) provides that on receipt of a response to a request for
production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling
further responses if:¿¿
(1)
A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.¿¿
(2)
A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or
evasive.¿¿
(3)
An objection in the response is without merit or too general.¿¿
In
responding to a demand for production of documents, a party must either provide
one of the following: (1) a legally adequate statement of compliance; (2) a
statement of inability to comply; or (3) an objection to the particular
demand.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd.
(a).) If any objections are made, they must: (1) “[i]dentify
with particularity any document … falling within any category of item in the
demand to which an objection is being made”; and (2) “[s]et forth clearly the
extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.”¿ (Id., §
2031.240, subd. (b).)¿¿
To
prevail, a party moving for an order compelling further responses to a document
production demand must first offer facts demonstrating “good cause justifying
the discovery sought by the demand.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd.
(b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.”¿
(TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443,
448.)¿ If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the
responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure.¿ (Kirkland
v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)
Plaintiffs argue that
Defendant has failed to provide Code-compliant responses and documents
responsive to Plaintiffs Requests for Production, including but not limited to
Numbers 16, 19-32, 37-41, and 45-46. (Thomas Decl., ¶ 20.)
As
to Requests 16, and 19-32, Defendant represents that it has produced documents
as to those Requests.
Defendant also argues that had
the meet and confer been one in good faith, it would have produced documents
that are responsive to Request No. 45 and 46. Taking Plaintiff’s statement into
consideration, the Court finds that there was a proper meet and confer and
compels Defendant to produce said documents.
As to request for Production
No. 37-41 seeking codes
related to similar vehicles and customer complaints and labor operations codes
from 2018 to present. These requests are overbroad because they seek
information not related to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Therefore, these requests will
be limited to codes related to repairs made to Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant
is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 37-41 with the codes
applicable to repairs made to Plaintiffs’ vehicle.
Sanctions
The
court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes
or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or demand
for production of documents unless the party subject to the sanction acted with
substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of
Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).)
The Court finds that Defendant acted
with substantial justification.
Accordingly,
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED in part with the
limitations set forth above.
Moving
party to give notice.