Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00475, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22LBCV00475    Hearing Date: May 9, 2023    Dept: S27

1.     Background Facts

Plaintifsf, Leak and Parwez Kabir 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, 17, 19-32, 37-41, and 45-46.

b.     Relevant Information About Vehicle

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on 8/19/17, in exchange for valuable consideration, Plaintiff purchased a 2017 Chevrolet Silverado, manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant.  During the warranty period, the vehicle contained or developed transmission 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 10/28/22, Plaintiff served discovery requests.  Defendant served responses.  The parties attempted to meet and confer, but the parties were unable to resolve their issues. 

Plaintiff argues Defendant has interposed improper objections to discovery, and after meet and confer, has refused to provide code-compliant responses.  Plaintiff also argues Defendant has failed to produce documents in a manner consistent with the Code. 

Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer prior to filing the motion.  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.   It argues if the motion is granted, it should be pursuant to a protective order. 

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

d.     Initial Note

Plaintiff, in the moving papers, argues Defendant must produce documents in a code-compliant manner, with a document index and documents with titles.  Defendant fails to address this argument in opposition to the motion.  Defendant must produce documents in a manner consistent with CCP §2031.280(a). 

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.      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.   

g.     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. 

9. 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.

ii.             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. 

iii.            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 he signed the model protective order on 2/16/23 (prior to filing the motion).  Defendant does not meaningfully address this issue of the sufficiency of the model protective order in opposition to the motion.  It appears Plaintiff has agreed to a protective order, and therefore this objection is overruled.

iv.            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.

v.         Documents Already Produced

Defendant argues it already produced documents responsive to RPDs 16, 19-32, 17, 33, and 45-46.  Defendant fails to state that these are the only responsive documents. 

vi.            Conclusion

Defendant’s objections are overruled.  Defendant must serve further responses, in compliance with the Code, within twenty days.  Defendant must produce all documents in a manner compliance with the Code. 

h.     Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks imposition of sanctions in the amount of $2125.  The Court finds sanctions are warranted and the amount is reasonable and fully supported.  The Court notes that Defendant files the same opposition to each and every motion to compel further responses heard in this department, and fails to address specific issues raised by the individual moving papers.  Defendant’s procedure of doing so renders ruling on the motions confusing and difficult.  Additionally, Defendant is aware that the Court routinely grants these motions, and yet persists in opposing them. 

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Defendant and its attorneys of record, jointly and severally.  They are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through his attorney of record, in the total amount of $2125, within twenty days. 

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.