Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21CHCV00354, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 21CHCV00354    Hearing Date: September 12, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 9/12/22                                                      TRIAL DATE: 11/7/22

Case #21CHCV00354

 

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE

(Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1)

 

Motion filed on 8/1/22.

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Miguel Gonzalez Lopez and JuanJose Gonzalez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors, LLC

NOTICE: ok

 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant General Motors, LLC to comply with the Court’s 12/21/21 discovery order within 10 days and imposing prospective monetary sanctions on Defendant of $500 each day Defendant fails to fully comply following the expiration of the 10-day compliance period. 

 

RULING: The motion is denied.

 

This action arises out of Plaintiffs Miguel Gonzalez Lopez and JuanJose Gonzalez’s (Plaintiffs) claim that their 2019 Chevrolet Camaro, which was manufactured and distributed by Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant) suffers from defects, including the “Powertrain Defect,” and that Defendant has been unable to repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant knew that the vehicle suffered from defects, but still refused to repurchase the vehicle which Plaintiffs claims is a willful violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  Plaintiffs’ complaint contains the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2(d); (2) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2(b); (3) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2(a)(3); (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty – Civil Code Section 1791.2(a), Civil Code Section 1794 and (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability – Civil Code Section 1791.1, Civil Code Section 1794.

 

On 12/21/21, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1.  Specifically, this Court struck/overruled Defendant’s objections to the discovery requests and ordered Defendant to provide further responses to Requests 7, 8, 10-14, 21-24 and 27-30 and to produce further documents accordingly within 30 days.  (See 12/21/21 Minute Order, p.3).  The Court further ordered that the production of any documents Defendant contends contain trade secret or confidential proprietary information shall be so designated and would be subject to the LASC Model Protective Order.  Id. 

 

On 1/18/22, Defendant served Plaintiff with supplemental/further responses to the subject Requests by email, but Defendant did not produce corresponding documents.  (Rivero Decl. ¶10, Ex.5).  On 2/18/22, Plaintiffs emailed Defendant requesting that Defendant comply with the Court’s 12/21/21 order.  (Id. at ¶11, Ex.6).  The 2/18/22 email did not address any purported deficiencies in the supplemental responses served on 1/18/22.  Id.  Rather, it only addressed Defendant’s failure to produce corresponding documents.  Id.  On 2/21/22, the parties entered into the LASC Stipulation and Protective Order.  (Id. at ¶12, Ex.7).  On 3/7/22, Defendant produced documents by email.  (Id. at ¶13).  On 6/17/22, Plaintiffs sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant regarding the purported deficient supplemental responses and document production.  (Id. at ¶14, Ex.8).  Defendant did not respond, therefore, on 8/1/22, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant to comply with the Court’s 12/21/21 discovery order within 10 days and imposing prospective monetary sanctions on Defendant of $500 each day Defendant fails to fully comply following the expiration of the 10-day compliance period.  Defendant has opposed the motion.

 

On 8/26/22, Defendant provided Plaintiff with further supplemental responses and documents with verifications provided on 8/29/22.  (Major Decl. ¶8, Ex.A).  Defendant further indicates that it is currently working on compiling a few outstanding documents (individual TSBs) and intends to produce them before the hearing.  (Id. at ¶9).  As such, Defendant contends that the motion is moot.  In the reply, Plaintiffs contend that the further supplemental responses are still not code-compliant and that the production is deficient.

 

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, Defendant did comply with this Court’s 12/21/21 order to provide further responses within 30 days as Plaintiff concedes that further responses were served on 1/18/22.  While Defendant did not produce additional documents at that time, it appears that the delay may have been the due to the fact that a protective order was not entered until late February.

 

If Plaintiffs were not satisfied with the supplemental responses served on 1/18/22, they were required to timely meet and confer and timely file and serve a motion to compel further responses which addressed the claimed deficiencies in the supplemental responses.  See CCP 2031.310(b), (c).  CCP 2031.310(c) provides: 

 

Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.  (emphasis added) 

  

Here, Plaintiffs did not send their meet and confer letter regarding the purportedly non-code compliant supplemental responses served on 1/18/22 until 6/17/22 and did not file and serve the instant motion until 8/1/22 well beyond the 45-day deadline set forth in CCP 2031.310(c).  However, since Defendant served further supplemental responses on 8/26/22 (with verifications on 8/29/22) and produced additional documents, Plaintiffs have the opportunity to file a timely motion as to those responses which they contend are still deficient.

 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs must file and serve a timely new motion along with a separate statement which specifically addresses the purported deficiencies in the further supplemental responses served on 8/26/22 and verified on 8/29/22 and the purported deficiencies in the accompanying production.  While Plaintiffs have attempted to address the foregoing in the reply, Defendant has not had the opportunity to respond to such arguments. 

 

The Court does not find that Defendant’s conduct warrants the prospective sanctions requested by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs have not requested sanctions for the filing of instant motion  (i.e., attorney fees and costs related to the filing of this motion).  Therefore, Plaintiffs request for sanctions is denied.