Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV32587, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32587    Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 28, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiff Brian Ellis

Responding Party: Defendant General Motors LLC

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RPDS IS GRANTED.       

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SIS IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSE WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, oppositions, and supplemental declaration.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action arising out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2019 Chevrolet Bolt, manufactured and distributed by Defendant General Motors, LLC.

ANALYSIS

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”).  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) must submit “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)  If the moving party has shown good cause for the RPDs, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to SIs and RPDs. The Court previously ordered the parties to meet and confer on Defendant’s supplemental responses and provide a joint declaration identifying what requests remain at issue.

A. Special Interrogatories Nos. 42-44

            SIs nos. 42-44 seek information relating to Defendant’s pre-litigation investigation into whether Plaintiff’s vehicle was eligible for repurchase or replacement. Defendant responded by directing Plaintiff to Defendant’s document production, including the Service Request Activity Reports. This response is sufficient. No further response is necessary.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to SIs is DENIED.

B. RPDs Nos. 37, 40, 43, 46 and 50

            These RPDs seek documents relating to complaints made about the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle in the state of California. This is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims for civil penalties for willful failure to repurchase. Defendant asserts the documents are irrelevant because Plaintiff requested a loaner vehicle and did not request a repurchase. The Court is unpersuaded that this absolves Defendant of any possible civil penalties. Further response is necessary.

C. RPDs Nos. 49 and 51

RPDs nos. 49 and 51 seek documents relating to Defendant’s knowledge of the defects before it issued recalls. This is relevant to civil penalties. Further response is necessary.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further RPDs is GRANTED.