Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV25436, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25436    Hearing Date: August 17, 2023    Dept: 55

VAZQUEZ v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,                                              22STCV25436

Hearing Date:  8/17/23,  Dept. 55.

#8:   MOTION  TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 2031.320(b) AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS LLC and ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,004.15.

 

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

 

MP:  Plaintiff

RP:  Defendant

 

 

Summary

 

On 8/5/22, Plaintiff RENE PEREZ VAZQUEZ filed a Complaint alleging that Plaintiff purchased a new 2020 Chevrolet Silverado having and developing serious defects and nonconformities to warranty, and Defendant GM was unable to conform Plaintiff's vehicle to the applicable express warranty, after a reasonable number of repair attempts.

The causes of action are:

1. VIOLATION OF SONG-BEVERLY ACT- BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY COMPLAINT

2. VIOLATION OF SONG-BEVERLY ACT - BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

3. VIOLATION OF THE SONG- BEVERLY ACT SECTION 1793.2 COMPLAINT

4. VIOLATION OF THE SONG- BEVERLY ACT SECTION 1793.22- TANNER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

 

MP Positions

 

Moving party requests an order compelling Defendant’s further responses as to document request numbers 13-16 and 34-35, and imposing $2,004.15 in sanctions against Defendant and counsel, on grounds including the following:

 

·         Plaintiff's discovery requests include information sought regarding Plaintiff's vehicle, recalls and technical service bulletins for the Subject Vehicle, and similar complaints from consumers of the same year, make, and model as the Plaintiff's vehicle. (Exhibit 1.)

·         On January 24, 2023, Defendant provided unresponsive, evasive, incomplete, and noncompliant responses. (Exhibit 2.)

·         Evidence of repurchases and similar complaints made by other owners of the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado (subject vehicle) are discoverable and could be admissible at trial in a Song- Beverly action. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery that is probative of Defendant's knowledge of defects and malfunctions with the vehicle’s transmission and electrical issues in 2019 Chevrolet Silverado including in vehicles other than the subject vehicle, and defendant's handling of complaints and repurchases. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143-44; Doppes v. Bentley Motors. Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967.973-74, 994.)

·         Plaintiff’s Requests Numbers 13- 16 are reasonably particularized in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.030, subdivision (c)(1). Plaintiff’s Requests seek information and documents regarding similar non-conformities, conditions, and defects for which Plaintiff presented the subject vehicle for repair. These issues are evidenced by the repair orders produced by Defendant itself in response to Plaintiff’s other written discovery requests. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court disregard  Defendant’s claims of confusion as to the documents sought.

·         The opposing declaration dated in 2018 that Defendant repeatedly files, does not clearly identify the alleged trade secrets, or identify each document which would disclose the trade secrets.

·         Defendant's counsel has not responded to Plaintiff's Meet and Confer letter dated February 8, 2023.

 

RP Positions

 

Opposing party advocates denying, for reasons including the following:

 

·         This motion demands the production of documents about vehicles other than Plaintiff’s Silverado. This breach of warranty case is about Plaintiff’s Silverado and GM’s repairs of that Silverado under warranty. GM has already produced documents in its possession relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Complaints by other vehicle owners are not relevant to Plaintiff’s claim that GM failed to repair her Silverado within a reasonable number of attempts.

·         Request for Production Nos. 13-16 seek documents concerning not just Plaintiff’s repairs and complaints, but other consumers’ complaints and vehicles. Plaintiff has asserted breach of warranty claims, not product liability claims. Either Plaintiff’s Silverado conformed to the warranty, or it did not. Either GM repaired the Silverado within a reasonable number of attempts, or it did not. Period. Documents about other vehicles “of the same year, make, and model” of the Silverado are irrelevant to the pending claims.

·         Even if they did seek relevant information about specifically defined non-conformities, which they do not, Request for Production Nos. 13-16 are objectionable, because they are facially overbroad. For example, the majority of these requests seek all documents relating to GM’s internal analyses of the alleged “conditions, defects or nonconformities” with various components in vehicles of the same year, make and model as Plaintiff’s Silverado. Under Section 2019.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure, discovery must be tailored to each case, particularly the issues presented.

·         Request for Production Nos. 34-35 seek all technical service bulletins (“TSBs”) and recalls relating to the Subject Vehicle. These requests are overbroad and beyond the claims and defenses of this matter. Plaintiff’s counsel is well aware that GM is always willing to provide Plaintiff with the list of TSBs that may apply to vehicles of the same year, make and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff’s Counsel is also well aware that GM is willing to produce available TSBs, as they relate to the pending claims and defenses of this matter, upon Plaintiff’s reasonable request. However, Plaintiff has refused to narrow the scope of these requests to information relevant to this instant matter.

·         The requests also demand production of confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive information that may contain trade secrets.

·         In an effort to resolve this dispute, GM is willing to supplement its document production to include other customer complaints within GM’s ESI computer database that are substantially similar to Plaintiff’s complaints concerning the alleged defects, for vehicles purchased in California of the same year, make and model as the Subject Vehicle.

·         Plaintiff’s letter cannot be deemed a genuine effort to “meet and confer” because she did not try to resolve any dispute.

·         Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is frivolous; GM clearly acted with substantial justification, and its objections are merited.

 

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The motion is denied.

The Court finds that all of the subject document requests seek to delve too deeply into other customers’ purchases, more than many other Lemon Law case seen in this Court, thereby onerously creating more work in responding than any value in obtaining the discovery. 

Additionally, moving party cites no governing case directly on point.  For example, cases involving admissible evidence at trial, about other customers to prove penalties for intentional car manufacturer misconduct, did not involve discovery law considerations, such as that extent to which discovery should be controlled by judges.  Additionally,  the Statutory Section and Jury Instruction cited by moving party (Civ. Code Section 1794(c); CACI 3244) address proof of Defendant’s willful violations as to a plaintiff’s purchased vehicle, without mentioning other customers’ vehicles. 

As for whether documentation from other vehicle purchases, beyond Plaintiff’s, is discoverable, there is no governing California case cited on point.  "A legal proposition asserted without apposite authority necessarily fails."  People v. Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628, 643.

 

Plaintiffs typically rely on opinions that did not involve any issue about scope of discovery in automobile defect cases.  See, e.g.,  Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 346  (in support of punitive damages, based on concealment, plaintiffs needed evidence that, prior to purchase of the vehicle, the defendant manufacturer was aware of a defect it was either unwilling or unable to repair);  Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc.  (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 996  (“the trial court had to impose terminating sanctions once it was learned during trial that Bentley still had failed to comply with discovery orders and directives and Bentley's misuse of the discovery process was even worse than previously known.”);  Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154 (“Ford asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Ford's in limine motions to exclude evidence of other vehicles and of the nonwarranty repair. We have already concluded the court did not abuse its discretion….”);  Berroteran v. Sup. Ct. (2019) 41 Cal. App. 5th 518, 536  (“the former testimony concerned Ford’s 6.0-liter diesel engine, policies and procedures for warranty claims,…  For all these reasons, the trial court abused its discretion in granting Ford’s motion to exclude the entire depositions ….”);  Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1105  (“evidence would permit a jury to infer that Isuzu impedes and resists efforts by a consumer to force Isuzu to repurchase a defective car, regardless of the presence of an unrepairable defect, and that Isuzu's decision to reject Oregel's demand was made pursuant to Isuzu's policies rather than to its good faith and reasonable belief….”). 

 

Similarly, defendants may rely on an unhelpful opinion, which did not address whether discovery regarding other vehicles is proper, but distinguishably ruled that a plaintiff failed to show prejudice by not having such discovery available for trial.  See  MacQuiddy v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2015) 233 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1045  ("He also argues courts have found relevant discovery requests seeking a car manufacturer's warranty policies and procedures, policies on buyback requests, and other customer complaints. Yet he does not show that, in this case, had the trial court compelled responses to his requests or denied the protective order, it is reasonably probable the jury would have found Mercedes-Benz willfully failed to repurchase or replace his car.").  Another opinion involved trial, not discovery, and addressed no evidence of other customers, but did mention evidence types in relation to the plaintiff customer, only.  See  Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 185, 186  (Civil Code Section 1794 civil penalty for a willful violation may be shown if, “evidence showed … [the manufacturer] failed to investigate the repair history of the car,” “if the manufacturer reasonably believed the product did conform to the warranty, or a reasonable number of repair attempts had not been made, or the buyer desired further repair rather than replacement or refund,” or, if there was a “lack of a written policy,” ).  [Emphases added.]

 

As to overbreadth objections involving no claim of privilege, courts determine whether the discovery is “ ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence’ ”, generally  resolving doubt in favor of permitting discovery.  Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542.  “When discovery requests are grossly overbroad on their face, and hence do not appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need, a reasonable inference can be drawn of an intent to harass and improperly burden.”  Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.  [Emphasis added.]  Motions to compel further responses may be denied as to item numbers that are partially overbroad, such as to those seeking some irrelevant information, and the Court has no obligation to modify them to make them entirely proper.  Deaile v. Gen. Tele. Co. of Cal. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 841, 850-53;  Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 789, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in  Guzman v. General Motors Corp. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 438, 444.