Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

MIGUEL DIEGO BELTRAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GENERAL MOTORS LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23STCV02133

DEPARTMENT 45

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Action Filed: 01/31/23

Trial Date: 12/02/24

Hearing date: April 19, 2024

Moving Party: Plaintiff Miguel Diego Beltran

Responding Party: Defendant General Motors

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One)

The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant is to provide supplemental responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) Nos. 13-16 and 34-35, and responsive documents within 20 days of this order.

The request for sanction is GRANTED in the amount of $2004.15, payable within 30 days.

Background

On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff Miguel Diego Beltran (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) and DOEs 1 through 10, inclusive for (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty; (3) Violation of The Song- Beverly Act Section 1793.2; and (4) Violation of The Song- Beverly Act Section 1793.22- Tanner Consumer Protection Act.

On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (“RFPs”)(Set One). On April 3, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition. On April 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), and Section 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories or requests for production of documents where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.¿¿

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).)¿¿¿¿

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).¿

Discussion

Notice

Plaintiff propounded Request for Production of Documents (“RFPs”)(Set One) on June 29, 2023 on Defendant. (Mot. 3:23-25, Ex. 1.) On July 31, 2023, Defendant allegedly provided unresponsive, evasive, incomplete, and non-compliant responses. (Id., Ex. 2.) Defendant was granted an extension to respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter regarding further responses by August 31, 2023. (Yashar Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 4.) Therefore, the instant motion was properly noticed because it was filed twenty (20) days after the supplemental responses were due.

Meet and Confer

Plaintiff advances the declaration of Nadia Yashar, who attests to meet and confer efforts prior to the filing of this instant motion. Yashar avers that she sent Defendant a meet and confer letter specifying the deficiencies in the responses to the RFPs on August 17, 2023. (Yashar Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 3.) Yashar had also set a deadline for supplemental responses to be provided by August 24, 2023 unless Defendant requested an extension in writing. (Id.) Defendant was granted as extension to provide supplemental responses on August 31, 2023. (Id. ¶ 8.) Yashar declares no supplemental responses were provided making this instant motion necessary. (Id. ¶ 9.)

Therefore, Plaintiff sufficiently attempted to meet and conferred on this matter prior to bringing this motion.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide verified, supplemental further responses to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 13-16 and 34-35 as well as further and complete production of documents responsive to these RFPs. Plaintiff argues the requested documents are needed to proceed with the discovery of this case and evaluate the case and civil penalties. Specifically, Plaintiff contends he seeks information regarding his vehicle, recalls and technical service bulletins for the Subject Vehicle, and similar complaints from consumers of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle.

In opposition, Defendant argues it timely responded and/or served valid objections to all discovery requests and has produced its Global Warranty History Report for Plaintiff’s vehicle, 2018 Chevrolet Limited Warranty and Owner Assistance Information, BARS invoice reflecting components included in Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of delivery, Retail Installment Sale Contract, any incidentally obtained repair order for Plaintiff’s vehicle, Vehicle Summary and Repair Order Details, Service Request, Owner’s Manual for Chevrolet Silverado, Product Brochures for the Subject Vehicle, and a list of technical service bulletins and information service bulletins issued for the Subject Vehicle. Defendant further contends Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith because the letter simply demanded supplemental responses. Moreover, Defendant contends its objections should be sustained because it has already produced documents in its possession relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and complaints by other vehicle owners are not relevant. Defendant also contends Plaintiff does not need information concerning their internal investigations, and/or analysis of “defects” alleged in the Complaint, so RFPs Nos. 13016 are facially overbroad but Defendant asserts it is willing to supplement its document production to include other customer complaints within its ESI database that are substantially similar to Plaintiff’s complaints concerning the alleged defects for vehicles purchased in California of the same year, make and model as the Subject Vehicle. Additionally, Defendant asserts Plaintiff does not need all technical service bulletins and recalls sought in RFPs 34-35, which are overbroad and beyond the claims and defenses of this matter. Lastly, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s requests impermissibly seek trade secret material because the Silverado and its components were manufactured with multiple complex component parts and systems , many of which are supplied by third parties; the documents may relate to and contain confidential communications between Defendant’s employees and suppliers and/or sub-suppliers; some of the documents may include personally identifiable information; and most Defendant’s employees do not have access to its confidential engineering and business information.

In reply, Plaintiff argues documents evidencing repurchases and similar complaints in other 2018 Chevrolet Silverados are relevant and discoverable because it tends to show whether a defect or nonconformity exists in these types of vehicles and when this defect or nonconformity first arose, thus demonstrating when Defendant knew about the defect and when their affirmative duty to repurchase the vehicle arose. Furthermore, Plaintiff argues these documents support Plaintiff’s claims for civil penalties because they are relevant to determine whether Defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act. Moreover, Plaintiff contends Defendant cannot substantiate its trade secret objection and must move for a protective order. Finally, Plaintiff asserts Defendant completely refused to work with Plaintiff to locate documents responsive to these requests during the meet and confer process.

Upon review of the Separate Statements, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to code-compliant, objection-less further responses to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 13-16 and 34-35. Each request seeks specific documents related to repurchases by Defendant, complaints by other consumers, the number of consumers who have complained, technical service bulletins, and recalls for 2018 Chevrolet Silverado vehicles that presented the same defects and nonconformities as the Subject Vehicle. These requests are not narrowly tailored to the same year, make, and model of the Subject Vehicle and only seek those vehicles that presented the same defect and nonconformity as the one Plaintiff presented the Subject Vehicle to Defendant for repair. Additionally, these requests are relevant to Plaintiff’s preparation of this matter and to discover information potentially supportive of his civil penalties. Lastly, Defendant has met its burden is showing that the material sought contact trade secret information, did not seek a protective order, and did not provide a privilege log identifying those documents which it believes may contain trade secret information.

Therefore, the motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents is GRANTED.

Request for Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel further responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,004.15 for (1) 2.0 hours drafting this motion; (2) 1.0 hour reviewing th opposition and drafting the reply; (3) 1.5 hours preparing for and attending the hearing on the motion at an hourly rate of $425.00 per hour; (4) $91.65 for e-filing fee of this motion.

The Court finds that Defendant has not shown it acted with substantial justification in not providing further responses or that any other circumstances would make imposing sanctions unjust in this case.

Therefore, the request for sanction is GRANTED in the amount of $2,004.15 against Defendant General Motors LLC and its counsel of record.

It is so ordered.

Dated:

_______________________

ROLF M. TREU