Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV04954, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV04954 Hearing Date: January 10, 2025 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Fuentes v. General
Motors LLC
CASE NO.: 23SMCV04954
MOTION: Motion
to Compel Further Responses
HEARING DATE: 1/10/25
Legal
Standard
In
the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is
broad. “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,
that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if
the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010;
see Davies v. Superior Court
(1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301.) Section 2017.020(a) vests the Court with authority
to limit the scope of discovery if the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of the
discovery sought “clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought
will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” CCP § 2019.030 directs the Court to consider
the needs of the case, amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues
at stake in the litigation, and to consider whether the discovery being sought
is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable by a more
convenient or less expensive or less burdensome way, when deciding whether to
restrict the frequency of extent of use of an authorized discovery method.
If a party to whom a demand for
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely
response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to
the demand. (CCP § 2031.300(b); see Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007)
148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403-404.) However, when responses are served, the proper
motion is a motion to compel further responses, which is governed by CCP §§
2030.300 and 2031.310. A motion to compel further responses must set forth
specific facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the
demand and must be accompanied by a declaration showing a “reasonable and good
faith attempt” to resolve the issues outside of court. (CCP §§ 2016.040,
2031.310(b)(2).)
A motion to compel further responses
to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on:
(1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete
claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized
objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) A motion
for order compelling further responses “shall set forth specific facts showing
good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (CCP §
2031.310(b)(1).) Absent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the
moving party meets its burden of showing good cause by a fact-specific showing
of relevance. (See Kirkland v.
Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) If the moving party
has shown good cause for the RPDs, the burden is on the objecting party to
justify the objections. (Ibid.)
Plaintiff Jose Fuentes moves to
compel further responses and production of documents to Request for Production
of Documents (RPD), Set No. One, Nos. 16, 19-21, 32, and 42.
The RPDs define the term
“INFOTAINMENT SYSTEM DEFECT” to mean “such defects which result in symptoms
including, but not limited to: the cluster going blank, the radio screen taking
an abnormally long time to display, failure of the vehicle to shift out of park
while the screen is blank, illumination of Diagnostic Trouble Code (“DTC”)
U0155, failure of the turn signals to chime, freezing of the screen, required
performance of Technical Service Bulletin (“TSB”) 23-NA-143, software
anomalies; and any other concern identified in the repair history for the
subject 2022 Chevrolet Tahoe; Vehicle Identification Number GNSCNKDXNR287399.”
RPD no. 16 requests “All DOCUMENTS,
including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic
mails, concerning, or relating to any internal analysis or investigation by YOU
or on YOUR behalf regarding the INFOTAINMENT SYSTEM DEFECT in vehicles of the
same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”
RPD no. 20 requests “All DOCUMENTS,
including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic
mails, concerning failure rates of vehicles of the same year, make, and model
as the SUBJECT VEHICLE as a result of the INFOTAINMENT SYSTEM DEFECT.”
RPD no. 21 requests “All DOCUMENTS,
including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic
mails, concerning, or relating to any fixes for the INFOTAINMENT SYSTEM DEFECT
in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”
RPD no. 32 requests “All DOCUMENTS
relied upon by YOU in support of YOUR contention that YOU were under no
obligation to promptly replace or repurchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”
RPD no. 42 requests “All DOCUMENTS
which evidence YOUR organizational charts of people within YOUR customer
service call center or prelitigation department.”
Plaintiff shows good cause
justifying the discovery sought by the subject demands. The requested documents
are relevant to the issues related to Defendant’s good faith compliance with
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, including breach of the express
warranty and implied warranty of merchantability. (Civ. Code §§1791.1, 1793.2,
1794.) Plaintiff’s requests seek evidence on Defendant’s internal investigation
and analysis of the infotainment system defect allegedly affecting Plaintiff’s
vehicle. Defendant’s knowledge such defect(s) in vehicles of the same model and
year would tend to show whether Defendants willfully refused to repurchase the subject
vehicle despite knowing of the existence of the defect.
As to the subject requests, GM
served Plaintiff with only boilerplate objections, including that: (1) certain
definitions are vague or ambiguous; (2) the sought production is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the request
is not limited to subject vehicle at issue; (3) the requests are burdensome and
oppressive because compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive
considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the
importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; (4) the documents are
protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or Section 2034.010
et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure; and (5) the documents are confidential,
proprietary, competitively sensitive, and/or trade secret. Defendant bears the
burden to justify its blanket objections to the requests.
Defendant argues these requests are
largely irrelevant and overbroad, seeking information that has no bearing on
Plaintiff’s individual complaints about the Subject Vehicle. Defendant reasons
that any information about other vehicles or the design of the Tahoe are
irrelevant to the pending claims. Defendant further contends that GM’s internal
analyses of the vaguely defined “Infotainment System Defect” in 2022 Chevrolet
Tahoe vehicles and all documents relating to other similar complaints in 2022
Chevrolet Tahoe vehicles are overbroad.
The Court disagrees. The instant requests are reasonably tailored.
The “Infotainment System Defect” is reasonably
defined, and categories are reasonably limited to vehicles of the same year,
make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant does not substantiate their
claim of “undue burden” or whether the documents seek confidential or trade
secret information. (Keshishian Decl. ¶10.) As noted, the requests elicit
admissible evidence such as Defendant’s internal investigation and analysis of
the infotainment system defect plaguing Plaintiff’s vehicle. This would tend to
show whether Defendant previously knew of such defect(s) in similar vehicles,
but nevertheless willfully refused to repurchase the subject vehicle.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
Further responses are ordered within 20 days.