Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV00008, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 23AHCV00008    Hearing Date: September 28, 2023    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

EFRAIN TRUJILLO,

 

                                            Plaintiff,

vs.

 

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

 

                                            Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 23AHCV00008

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

 

Date:   September 27, 2023

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

         

          I.        INTRODUCTION

          Efrain Trujillo sues General Motors for violations of the Song-Beverly Act. His claims concern a 2021 GMC Canyon. Trujillo alleges that defects and nonconformities having to do with the transmission and suspension manifested themselves within the warranty period, and that General Motors was not able to conform them to warranty after a reasonable number of attempts.

          Shortly after serving General Motors with the summons and complaint, Plaintiffs propounded discovery. At issue are Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiffs seek further responses to numbers 16, 19-32, 37-41, and 45-46. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted as to 16, 19-32, and 45-46; and denied as to 37-41.  

 

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

          A party responding to requests for inspection must either provide a statement of compliance, represent that it lacks the ability to comply, or object. Code Civ. Proc. §2031.210.

          - If a party responds with a statement of compliance, the statement must indicate whether production will be allowed in whole or in part and that all documents in the responding party’s possession, custody or control to which no objection is being made will be included in the production. Code Civ. Proc. §2031.220.

          - If a party responds that a particular demand cannot be complied with it must include a representation that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry have been made and that the inability to comply is because the item has never existed, has been lost, stolen, or misplaced, or has never been in or is no longer in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control; such response must also identify the name and address of any person or entity known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of the item or category of item.  Code Civ. Proc. §2031.230.

          - If a response includes objections, a privilege log identifying documents being withheld must be provided. Code Civ. Proc. §2031.240.

          When a party propounding demands for inspection deems responses to the responses to be incomplete or evasive, or deems objections to be without merit, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses. Such motion must set forth facts showing good cause for the discovery, be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, and include a separate statement. Such motion must also be made within 45 days of verified responses or supplemental responses, or on or before any specific later date the parties have agreed to in writing. Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310(a)-(c).

          Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310 (h) provides for the imposition of monetary sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes such a motion unless the court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification, or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

 

III.     ANALYSIS

          A. Procedural History

          Trujillo served RFP, Set One, on February 24, 2023. Declaration of Phil A. Thomas, ¶5 and Exhibit A. General Motors served unverified responses on April 25, 2023, with verifications following on May 10, 2023. Id. at ¶¶6 and 7 and Exhibits B and C.

          In response to RFPs 16, 19-32, 37-41 and 45-46, General Motors responded with objections only, and stated that no documents would be produced.

          Trujillo’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter on May 25, 2023. Id. at ¶10, and Exhibit D. General Motors wrote a responsive letter on June 6, 2023. Id. at ¶11 and Exhibit E. In this letter, General Motors indicates that it will produce some documents, subject to a protective order. In particular, General Motors stated that with respect to RFPs 16 and 19-32, GM “will agree to produce its Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual for the relevant time period, and its policies and procedures used to evaluate lemon law claims and repurchase requests made under the Song-Beverly during the relevant time period” pursuant to protective order. Additional meet and confer letters were exchanged. Id. at ¶¶12 and 13 and Exhibits F and G. On June 7, 2023, the parties entered into a protective order, following which General Motors produced additional documents. Id. at ¶¶14 and 15.      B. Further Responses Are Required as to RFPs 16, 19-32, and 45-46

          In response to RFPs 16, 19-32 and to 45 and 46, General Motors responded with objections only and indicated that no documents would be produced. Later, in meet and confer letters, it indicated that certain responsive documents would be produced once a protective order was in place. The evidence seems to be that this occurred. However, since General Motors never amended its responses, the document production does not match the response. Trujillo is entitled to a supplemental response to these RFPs indicating whether General Motors is or has complied in whole or in part, and whether any responsive documents are being withheld pursuant to privilege.

          C. No Further Responses Are Required as to RFPs 37-41

          These RFPs seek documents “sufficient to identify” and “sufficient to show” various codes for vehicles of the same year, make and model as the one at issue.

For example, RFP #37 asks for “DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify all of YOUR OBDII codes for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” RFP #38 seeks, “DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all of YOUR vehicle symptom codes for the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” These are representative of this set of RFPs. Because these ask for “all” codes, rather than all codes pertaining to transmission and suspension issues, the objection that the RFPs are overly broad and seek irrelevant information is well taken and is sustained.

          D. Request for Monetary Sanction is Denied

          The Court declines to find that this motion was opposed without substantial justification. The request for a monetary sanction is therefore denied.

 

IV.     ORDER

           Trujillo’s motion to compel further responses is granted as to RFPs 16, 19-32, 45 and 46 is granted. General Motors is ordered to provide further, verified, code-complaint responses within 20 days of notice of this order. The motion is otherwise denied. The request for a monetary  sanction is denied. Trujillo is ordered to provide notice.

 

         

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT