Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00029627-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 06, 2024

06/07/2024  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 37-2023-00029627-CU-BC-CTL GRUNDE VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Christer Grunde's motion to compel further responses to requests for production is DENIED.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production ('RFP') nos. 29-34. RFP nos.

29-32 request 'cop[ies] of' Defendant's 'diagnostic trouble code number[s]' P2BAA (no. 29), P2C7A (no.

30), P14D9 (no. 31), and #P2382 (no. 32). RFP no. 33 requests a 'copy of YOUR TAC case number #9-10274344811.' RFP no. 44 requests a 'copy of YOUR document ID numbers #5158627, #5538969, and #5670629.' In response to these RFPs, Defendant objected to them as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, and that they intruded upon its proprietary trade secret information. Based on these objections, Defendant stated no documents would be produced in response to the requests.

RFP nos. 29-34, as phrased, are vague and ambiguous, and likely overbroad. A 'copy of' a trouble code number could refer to the number itself, or it could refer to a set policy describing the conditions that trigger the number, or it could refer to all instances in which the number has been triggered across all of Defendant's vehicles, unlimited by time, scope, or geographic area. Similarly, a 'copy of' a TAC case number or a documents number could refer to the numbers themselves, or it could refer to some or all documents associated with those numbers, unlimited in time, scope, or geographic area. Moreover, simply because the above numbers are referenced in a repair order does not render all documents associated with those numbers relevant and discoverable, particularly where the numbers touch on vehicles other than Plaintiff's vehicle.

In sum, Defendant's objections had merit, and its refusal to produce documents in response to RFP nos.

29-34 was justified. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3064070  12