Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV00550, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00550, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00550 Hearing Date: March 21, 2024 Dept: C

GARIBAY v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

CASE NO.: 23NWCV00550

HEARING: 03/21/24

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (set one) is GRANTED in part.

Moving Party to give Notice.

This lemon law action was filed by Plaintiffs MARTIN GARIBAY and MARIA TERESA GARIBAY (“Plaintiffs”) on February 22, 2023.

On August 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the subject Motion, which seeks to compel Defendant’s further responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 17, 19, 23, 25, 31, 36, 39, 42, 43, 49, 56, 58, 59, 68, 77, 78, and 79.

The parties’ Joint Statement filed on March 12, 2024 states that the parties have informally resolved the Motion with respect to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 56, 58, 59, and 68. Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 56, 58, 59, and 68 per stipulation of the parties. Defendant is ORDERED to produce further responses and documents by no later than 30 days of the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended by agreement of the parties.

RFP Nos. 12, 17, 19, 23, 25, 31, 36, 39, 42, 43, 49, 76, 77, 78, and 79

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).)

The parties remain at an impasse regarding RFP Nos. 12, 17, 19, 23, 25, 31, 36, 39, 42, 43, 49, 76, 77, 78, and 79, which seek GM’s internal analysis, investigations, communications, reports, repair documents, government submissions, and design-related documents (including other consumer complaints and matters) about the alleged ‘Transmission Defects’ in vehicles other than Plaintiffs’ own Yukon.” (Motion 6:17-22.)

RFP Nos. 12, 17, 19, 23, 25, 31, 36, 39, 42 seek documents and information concerning the defects in GM vehicles equipped with the same transmission as the Subject Vehicle.

RFP Nos. 43 and 49 seek Power Point presentations, summaries, evaluations, reports, memoranda, meeting minutes, etc. concerning the alleged defects in GMC vehicles equipped with the same transmission as the Subject Vehicle, as well as deposition testimony regarding these documents.

RFP Nos. 76, 77, 78, and 79 seek documents and information showing any communications with any governmental agencies and third-party suppliers regarding the alleged defects in GM vehicles equipped with the same transmission as the Subject Vehicle.

The requests are overbroad because they seek documents related to all GM vehicles equipped with the same transmission as the Subject Vehicle, worldwide. These requests will be limited to documents concerning 2016 Yukon XL’s sold in California.

The Motion is GRANTED in part.

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.