Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00415, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22LBCV00415    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: S27

1.     Background Facts

Plaintiff, Gregorio Padilla filed this action against Defendant, General Motors, LLC for violation of the Song-Beverly Act. 

2.     Motion to Compel Further Responses

a.     Relief Sought

Plaintiff requests that the court compel defendant to respond further to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 16, 19, 20, 21, 32, and 42.

b.     Relevant Information About Vehicle

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on 5/11/19, in exchange for valuable consideration, Plaintiff purchased a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado, manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant.  During the warranty period, the vehicle contained or developed defects including a defective electrical system, defective steering system, defective braking system, and defective display system.  Plaintiff took the vehicle to the dealership multiple in connection with these various electrical defects, and each time Defendant, through its employees, failed to repair the problem.  Plaintiff requested a buy-back pursuant to lemon law, but the request was refused.

c.     Discovery Dispute

On 10/04/22, Plaintiff served discovery requests.  On 11/01/22, Defendant served responses.  The parties attempted to meet and confer and Defendant granted two extensions of time to file the motion, but the parties were unable to resolve their issues. 

Plaintiff is seeking the following general categories of documents: (1) those relating to GM’s internal investigation and analysis of the powertrain defects plaguing Plaintiff’s vehicle and establishing that Defendant previously knew of such defects but nevertheless refused to repurchase the vehicle (Nos. 16, 19, 20, and 21); and (2) those relating to Defendant’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, procedures, and practices (Nos. 32 and 42).

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has been aware of the widespread defects in the subject automobile and that Defendant has issued TSBs in connection with the issue.

Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer prior to filing the motion.  It argues Plaintiff did not sign Defendant’s proposed protective order until after filing this motion, and without giving Defendant an opportunity to produce materials subject to the protective order.  It also argues its objections are valid.  It argues Plaintiff is improperly seeking documents it has already produced.  It argues Plaintiff does not need documents about vehicles other than his own.  It argues Plaintiff is improperly seeking trade secret protected materials.   

Plaintiff, in reply, contends each objection is not well-taken and further responses must be compelled.

d.     Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff submitted objections with her reply papers.  The objections are sustained.

e.     Meet and Confer

 Defendant argues Plaintiff did not sufficiently meet and confer prior to filing this motion.  The Court has reviewed the parties’ meet and confer correspondence and finds it is sufficient.  The Court will rule on the motion on its merits. 

f.      RPDs 16, 19, 20, and 21

i.              Nature of RPDs

As noted above, these RPDs seek discovery of documents relating to GM’s internal investigation and analysis of the defects plaguing Plaintiff’s vehicle and establishing that Defendant previously knew of such defects but nevertheless refused to repurchase the vehicle. 

ii.             Burden to Justify Objections

The burden to justify an objection to a discovery request is on the party asserting the objection.  See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.  Defendant does not, in its opposing points and authorities and/or separate statement, address many of the objections asserted.  Those objections are therefore not justified and overruled.  The Court asks Defendant to interpose only objections it intends to justify in the future.   

iii.            Objections Detailed in Opposition

Defendant attempts, in its opposition, to justify the objections on grounds that (a) the discovery sought contains improper omnibus descriptions of categories of documents to be produced, (b) this case is solely about Plaintiff’s automobile, not other people’s automobiles, (c) Plaintiff has not adequately described the non-conformity about which she is complaining, (d) the RPDs are overly burdensome, (e) trade secret protected material is implicated, and if documents are produced, they should be produced only pursuant to an appropriate protective order. 

iv.            Other Vehicles

Defendant’s primary argument is that documents relating to other customers’ complaints about the subject vehicle are not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims because Plaintiff’s claims are limited to her own car.  The Court disagrees.  One element of a Song-Beverly complaint is that the defendant’s failure to buy back was not reasonable.  Clearly, a manufacturer’s knowledge that the plaintiff’s complaint is prevalent in the car manufactured is evidence of whether the failure to buy back was reasonable or not.  While Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4^th 138, 143-144 was decided in a different context and not as a discovery motion, the ultimate holding was that evidence of problems with other vehicles is relevant and admissible in a Song-Beverly case.  The relevance objection is therefore overruled.

v.             Burdensome/Overbroad

Defendant also failed to support its burdensome/overbroad objection.  Defendant did not provide any declaration or other evidence to show what would be necessary in order to respond and produce the subject documents.  Defendant provided its attorney’s declaration and an employee, Huizhen Lu’s declaration, but neither declaration addresses burdensomeness or overbreadth.  Absent evidence, Defendant cannot meet its burden to justify its objection. 

vi.            Trade Secrets

Defendant contends its trade secrets are implicated in connection with the requested documents.  Defendant provides the Declaration of its employee, Huizhen Lu, who details how these trade secrets are implicated.  Plaintiff does not, in reply, meaningfully dispute the trade secret ramifications of the requested discovery.  He contends, however, that the proper recourse is to seek a protective order, and that the parties have agreed to enter into a protective order in connection with the requested discovery.  Defendant, in its opposition, indicated a willingness to produce the discovery subject to a proper protective order.  This issue therefore appears to be resolved.  The objection is overruled, and the parties must meet and confer concerning any outstanding details about the protective order.

vii.           Omnibus Descriptions

Defendant contends Plaintiff is improperly using omnibus descriptions of categories of documents in her requests.  Defendant relies on Flora Crane Serv., Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 767, 786 (mis-cited as Cal.App.3d in the opposition) to support its position.  The Court therein stated, “all that should be required of a party litigant in his endeavor to obtain an inspection of records which are pertinent to his cause and which he is or should be entitled to examine, is that in his attempt to do so, he describe them with such certainty only as will or should reasonably apprise his legal opponent, or the custodian of such records, of that which may be desired.”  The Court went on to note that “omnibus descriptions” of documents with general descriptions could, in the context of a subpoena duces tecum, defeat the above rule.  Defendant does not, in its opposition to the motion, meaningfully articulate how this rule is broken.  The objection is therefore overruled.

viii.          Description of Non-Conformity

Defendant’s final argument is that Plaintiff has not adequately specified the non-conformity of which she is complaining.  The Court, above, detailed Plaintiff’s complaints about his automobile.  It is unclear what else he could say in terms of the problems he experienced.  This objection is overruled.

ix.            Conclusion

Defendant failed to support any of its objections to RPDs 16, 19, 20, and 21, and therefore the motion to compel further responses to these RPDs is granted.  To the extent there are issues concerning the use of a protective order, Counsel are ordered to meet and confer in good faith to resolve the issues.

g.     RPDs 32 and 42

As noted above, RPDs 32 and 42 relate to Defendant’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, procedures, and practices. 

Defendant argues no further response to these RPDs is necessary, primarily because Plaintiff is seeking information about vehicles other than her own vehicle.  This argument is rejected for the reasons discussed above. 

Defendant argues it already produced policy and procedure documents responsive to these requests, subject to the parties’ protective order.  Defendant fails to state that these are the only responsive documents. 

The motion to compel further responses to these RPDs is therefore also granted. 

h.     Sanctions

Neither party seeks imposition of sanctions in connection with the motion or opposition, and therefore none are imposed.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.