Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00028641-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 29, 2024

03/01/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00028641-CU-BC-CTL RIVERA VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court will hear from the parties regarding its comments set forth below.

First, the court notes that its patience in addressing Song-Beverly discovery motions of this nature is running thin. The situation here is particularly egregious. Filing 179-page (ROA #23) and 313-page (ROA #27) separate statements, the vast majority of which is pages of duplicative citations and quotations to statutory and case law, is unhelpful and burdensome to both the court and the opposing party. The tactic has made it very difficult for the court to effectively identify and assess the true disputes remaining between the parties.

Second, it appears the primary conflict concerns evidence related to vehicles other than Plaintiff's with the same defects, and the relevance of such evidence to establishing that Defendant previously knew of such defects but refused to repurchase Plaintiff's vehicle, and thus its 'failure to comply was willful' under the Song Beverly Act. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (c).) The court agrees that in some situations, limited investigation into specific defects affecting vehicles other than a Song-Beverly plaintiff's vehicle is permissible to assess the willfulness of the defendant's conduct. However, Plaintiff's requests here appear overbroad.

With respect to the first set of document requests, Plaintiff failed to identify a specific defect by which to frame the search for responsive documents. Statements such as 'complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which the Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE' (RFP no. 33) are not sufficient. With respect to the second set of document requests, Plaintiff's attempt to 'limit' the defects to 'STRUCTURAL DEFECTS,' 'ELECTRICAL DEFECTS,' 'TRANSMISSION DEFECTS,' and 'BRAKE DEFECTS,' falls short. The fact that other vehicle evidence is sought as to four separate and distinct categories of defect (rather than only as to vehicles of the same year, make, and model that have all those same four identical categories of defect) itself belies the contention the failure to repair or replace Plaintiff's specific vehicle was willful. Even assuming each category is not itself overbroad (they are), different combinations of applicable defect for different vehicles of the same year, make, and model renders those vehicles, and the repair/replace circumstances surrounding those vehicles, dissimilar to Plaintiff's vehicle.

Finally, policies and procedures in effect at the time Defendant made its analysis and decision concerning Plaintiff's vehicle, and which guided decisions related to Plaintiff's vehicle, are discoverable.

The court will generally require such documents to be produced.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2996434  13