Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01070, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01070, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01070 Hearing Date: March 21, 2024 Dept: C

FRAUSTO v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

CASE NO.: 23NWCV01070

HEARING: 03/21/24

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

Moving Party to give Notice.

This lemon law action was filed by Plaintiff ISAIAS FRAUSTO (“Plaintiff”) on April 6, 2023.

On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed the subject Motion, which seeks to compel Defendant’s further responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) Nos. 1, 3, 7, 17, 23, 24, 25, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 68, 76, 78, 79, 86, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 103, 104, and 105.

The Joint Statement filed on March 11, 2024 states that the parties have informally resolved the Motion with respect to RFP Nos. 1, 3, and 7. Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 1, 3, and 7 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. 17, 23, 24, 25, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 68, 76, 78, 79, 86, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 103, 104, and 105

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. 17, 23, 24, 25, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 68, 76, 78, 79, 86, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 103, 104, and 105.

RFP Nos. 17, 23, 24, 25, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42 seek internal investigation documents concerning transmission defects in GM vehicles equipped with the same transmission as the Subject Vehicle.

RFP Nos. 43, 50, 51, 52, 53 seek documents concerning summaries, memoranda, and Power Points concerning transmission defects in GM vehicles equipped with the same transmission as the Subject Vehicle.

RFP Nos. 58, 59, 68 seek documents concerning Song Beverly Act and Buyback Policies and Procedures not limited to the Subject Vehicle, vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the Subject Vehicle; or GM vehicle equipped with the same transmission as the Subject Vehicle that were sold in California.

RFP Nos. 76, 78, 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.

RFP No. 86 seeks documents concerning Dealer Agreements and GM’s Financial Documents.

RFP Nos. 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 103, 104, and 105 seek documents related to the Subject Vehicle’s Defects, including internal investigations, emails, and other ESI.

The Motion is DENIED without prejudice as to RFP No. 86. This information is protected under Civil Code §3295(c).

The remainder of the Motion is otherwise GRANTED. 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 2019 Chevrolet Silverado’s sold in California.

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.