Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 22CHCV00673, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00673, Date: 2023-08-04 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: 22CHCV00673 Hearing Date: August 4, 2023 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 8/4/23 TRIAL DATE: 4/8/23

Case #22CHCV00673

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1)

Motion filed on 6/22/23.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jesus Galvan Luna

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors LLC

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant General Motors LLC to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys of record, The Erksine Law Group, PC, in the amount of $3,210.00.

RULING: The motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of Plaintiff Jesus Galvan Luna’s (Plaintiff) claim that their warrantied 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (the Vehicle), which was manufactured and distributed by Defendant General Motors LLC (Defendant), suffers from certain defects including but not limited to defects in the engine and transmission and Defendant has been unable to repair the defects within a reasonable number of attempts. Plaintiff alleges that despite his request that Defendant repurchase or replace the Vehicle, Defendant failed to do either in violation of the Song-Beverly Act. As against Defendant, Plaintiff’s complaint contains causes of action for: (1) Violation of the Song Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty and (2) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty.

On 2/23/23, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1. (Thomas Decl. ¶5, Ex.A). The requests seek, among other things, information regarding Plaintiff’s vehicle, documents regarding how Defendant responds to requests for repurchase of a vehicle, documents explaining the various warranties, complaint and vehicle repair codes used in documents produced by Defendant, and documents showing similar complaints from consumers of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle. (Thomas Decl. ¶¶5, 8, Ex.A). On 4/4/23, Defendant served responses with objections. (Thomas Decl. ¶6, Ex.B). On 5/4/23, Defendant served a verification. (Thomas Decl. ¶7, Ex.C).

Pursuant to meet and confer efforts, the parties executed a protective order which was entered by the Court on 6/6/23. (See Protective Order entered 6/6/23; Thomas Decl. ¶¶10-11, Ex.D-E; Yaraghchian Decl. ¶¶4-6). On 6/7/23, Plaintiff’s counsel sent another meet and confer letter. (Thomas Decl. ¶12, Ex.F). On 6/14/23, Defendant’s counsel responded but Defendant did not produce additional documents. (Thomas Decl. ¶¶13, 15, Ex.G). In the opposition, Defendant contends that additional documents were produced on 6/16/23; however, the paragraph of attorney Yaraghchian’s declaration cited in support of such claim does not state additional documents were produced on 6/16/23. (See Opposition, p.3:18-22; Yaraghchian Decl. ¶7). In the reply, Plaintiff contends that Defendant did not serve additional documents until 7/24/23. (See Reply, p.1:17-24, p.2:7-14).

On 6/22/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1. The motion specifically addresses Defendant’s responses to Requests 16, 19-32, 37-41 and 45-46. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys of record, The Erksine Law Group, PC, in the amount of $3,210.00. Defendant has opposed the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the opposition.

ANALYSIS

A party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject

matter involved in the action or to the determination of any motion made in the action, if the

matter itself is admissible or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. See CCP 2017.010. Doubts as to relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. (1982) 31 C3d 785, 790.

CCP 2031.310(a) provides:

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

The documents sought are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant under the Song-Beverly Act. As such, Plaintiff has provided sufficient facts to establish the requisite good cause for production of the subject documents. See CCP 2031.310(b)(1).

Requests 16 and 19-32 seek documents related to Defendant’s general policies and procedures relied on when handling vehicle repurchase or replacement requests and calculating repurchase offers. Such documents, or lack thereof, may provide information as to whether Defendant has a policy which violates the Song-Beverly Act. See Oregel (1995) 90 CA4th 1094, 1104; Johnson (2005) 35 C4th 1191, 1200; Kwan (1994) 23 CA4th 174, 186.

Requests 37-41 and 45-46 seek documents related to internal codes generated or used by Defendant, and similar consumer complaints and repurchases of other vehicles of the same year, make and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle with the same or similar nonconformities. The codes will assist Plaintiff in establishing whether Defendant has a record of the same or similar issues for similar vehicles and proving that Defendant was aware of such issues/defects in vehicles of the same year, make and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Information regarding vehicles other than Plaintiff’s vehicle is relevant to the subject matter of this action as it could assist Plaintiff in proving Defendant’s willful violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Documents responsive to such requests may reasonably lead to the discovery of information as to the nature and duration of the defects, Defendant’s knowledge of the defects, and Defendant’s inability to repair the defects. While cases relied on by Plaintiff (i.e., Donlen (2013) 217 CA4th 138 and Doppes (2009) 174 CA4th 967) may not involve the exact circumstance before this Court, they are sufficient to show that the requested information could itself be admissible or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

Similarly, evidence regarding Defendant’s practices in handling consumer complaints is relevant to determining whether Defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act when it refused to repurchase Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Johnson, supra at 1198-1199; Oregel, supra at 1094; Kwan, supra at 186.

Defendant’s objections lack merit and/or have not been properly supported. As set forth above, the documents sought are relevant and/or could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, the requests are not irrelevant or overbroad. The requests are also not vague and/or ambiguous. Defendant has also failed to establish that responding to any of the subject requests would be overly burdensome or oppressive. To the extent that any of the requests seek confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information, a protective order has already been entered. (See 6/6/23 Protective Order). It is not clear why this protective order is insufficient and/or why Defendant indicates that it intends to file a motion for protective order if supplemental production is ordered. (See Opposition, p.9, fn.1). To the extent that documents are being withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, Defendant is required to provide a privilege log. See CCP 2031.240(c).

In the opposition, Defendant contends that, pursuant to the entry of the protective order, it has already produced documents responsive to Requests 16, 19-32 and 45-46 and there is nothing left to compel. (See Opposition, p.6:12-19). However, as noted above, the declaration of attorney Yaraghchian submitted in support of the opposition does not specifically state that additional documents were produced on 6/16/23 after the entry of the protective order. (See Yaraghchian Decl. ¶7). Based on the reply, it appears that Defendant did produce additional documents on 7/24/23. (See Reply, p.2:7-14). However, Defendant has not served supplemental responses withdrawing the objections and/or indicating that all documents responsive to the requests have been produced. Id. As such, it cannot be determined whether Defendant is withholding any responsive documents based on the objections which, as noted above, are without merit.

With regard to the documents produced on 7/24/23, it does not appear that Defendant has complied with its statutory obligations. CCP 2031.280(a) provides that “[a]ny documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” In the reply, Plaintiff states that the 7/24/23 “production consists of several hundred files, mostly in .pdf format, identified only by a bates number.” (Reply, p.1:19-22). Defendant gives no indication that it has identified the requests to which the documents/files produced on 7/24/23 are responsive as is required by CCP 2031.280(a).

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions against Defendant and it counsel for their failure to comply with their discovery obligations in the amount of $3,210.00 (7 hours of attorney time at $450/hour + $60 filing fee). CCP 2031.310(h); (Thomas Decl. ¶¶22-24).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted. To the extent the documents already produced by Defendant do not comply with CCP 2031.280(a), Defendant is ordered to identify the specific request number to which the documents respond. Such further responses and identification are due within 30 days.

The Court awards Plaintiffs sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys of record, The Erksine Law Group, PC, in the amount of $3,210.00. Sanctions are payable within 30 days.