Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00016182-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 27, 2024

06/28/2024  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 37-2023-00016182-CU-BC-CTL FRAZIER VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiffs Stephen Joseph Frazier and Dennise Frazier's motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and requests for production of documents (set one) to Defendant General Motors LLC is CONTINUED to August 23, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in this department. Parties to appear if there is a problem with the proposed hearing date.

The parties' filings reflect that they have not engaged in a meaningful meet and confer discussion. The parties exchanged letters but have otherwise failed to engage to the satisfaction of the court. This has resulted in presenting to the court many categories of documents that need not be in dispute. This has also resulted in overly long and unhelpful separate statements.

Accordingly, the court orders the parties to meet and confer by talking with each other – either in person, over the phone, or via videoconference – in light of the court's comments below.

First, the court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendant's responses to the form interrogatories, particularly as it relates to identifying witnesses, are deficient. Defendant is in the far better position to both identify the technicians and other witnesses involved in the sale and repair efforts related to the subject vehicle, and to obtain and provide their contact information.

Second, the requests related to Defendant's internal policies and procedures are relevant and discoverable. However, the requests as phrased are unrestricted in time, rendering them overbroad. The court would likely limit the discovery to policies and procedures in place at the time Plaintiffs purchased the vehicle.

Third, some of the special interrogatories (for example, SI nos. 21-23) contain subparts in contravention of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (f). The court does not view this deficiency as a mere technicality; the effect of presenting such interrogatories is to circumvent the limit on the number of special interrogatories that may be propounded without making the required declaration (under penalty of perjury) under section 2030.050.

Fourth, with respect to the issue concerning other vehicle evidence, the court's practice is to allow such discovery, but limited to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle, sold in California, and in connection with a sufficiently specific (and usually singular) defect. For example, the issue in Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 972, which is the case frequently relied on by Song-Beverly plaintiffs to argue other vehicle evidence is relevant to willful violation civil penalties, was an 'obnoxious odor' in the interior of the plaintiff's vehicle. Here, by contrast, Plaintiffs' Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3050975  18 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  FRAZIER VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00016182-CU-BC-CTL efforts to specify a defect using the term 'SAFETY DEFECT,' falls short. Although some of the symptoms, standing alone, are specific, together they are overly broad, particularly because Plaintiffs include 'and any other concern identified in the repair history for the subject 2022 Chevrolet Bolt EUV.' Finally, although Plaintiffs did not request sanctions, the court nonetheless emphasizes it is unlikely it would award sanctions even if they had been requested. These Song-Beverly discovery motions have recently become common, often include unnecessarily long and unhelpful separate statements (including overly long and improper responsive separate statements from the defendants), and almost always involve the degree to which other vehicle evidence is relevant to willful violation civil penalties.

The court orders moving party to file and serve a concise outline of what remains in dispute, along with a supporting declaration, no later than 9 court days before the next hearing. Any response to the concise outline is due no later than 5 court days before the next hearing. Parties should deliver a courtesy copy to chambers.

The court also reminds the parties that it is available for informal discovery conferences, which can be scheduled during ex parte hours by calling the calendar clerk.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3050975  18