Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV01354, Date: 2023-09-14 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: 22CHCV01354 Hearing Date: September 14, 2023 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 9/14/23
Case #22CHCV01354
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Requests for
Production of Documents, Set 1)
Motion filed on 6/6/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Maria Zamora
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors LLC
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is granted.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of Plaintiff Maria Zamora’s (Plaintiff)
claim that the 2022 Chevrolet Tahoe she purchased, which was manufactured and warranted
by Defendant General Motors LLC (Defendant), suffers from certain defects and
Defendant has been unable to repair the defects within a reasonable number of
attempts. Plaintiff alleges that despite
her frequent repair visits and Defendant’s inability to eliminate the problem
with the vehicle, Defendant failed to repurchase or replace the vehicle which
Plaintiff claims is a willful violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act. Plaintiff’s complaint contains the
following causes of action against Defendant: (1) Violation of the Song Beverly
Act – Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act –
Breach of Implied Warranty and (3) Negligent Repair.
On 2/21/23, 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 warranty, 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
3/23/23, Defendant served responses with objections. (Thomas Decl. ¶6, Ex.B). On 4/24/23, Defendant served a
verification. (Thomas Decl. ¶7, Ex.C).
Meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues
Plaintiff had with regard to Defendant’s responses to certain of the
requests. (Thomas Decl. ¶¶10-20, Ex.D-F;
Pappas Decl. ¶¶4-8, Ex.A).
On 6/6/23, 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. On 9/1/23, Defendant filed and served an
opposition to the motion and on 9/7/23, Plaintiff filed and served 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 Court finds that Plaintiff adequately met and
conferred before filing the instant motion.
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
Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiff’s
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 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).
Defendant has failed to establish that the documents
sought contain confidential and/or propriety information and that dissemination
of the information would result in injury.
See Nativi (2014) 223 CA4th 261, 318. To the extent that any of the requests
actually seek confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information, the
Court finds that a protective order will adequately protect Defendant’s
interests. (See Opposition,
p.5:20-26; Pappas Decl. ¶5, Ex.A). In
the reply, Plaintiff indicates that the parties have now entered a protective
order and Defendant produced some confidential documents. (See Reply, p.1:15-18). However, Plaintiff indicates that the
production consists of several hundred files, mostly in .pdf format, identified
only by a bates number and Defendant served no supplemental responses to the
requests that identify which documents are responsive to which requests. (Id., p.1:19-22, p.2:7-14). Additionally, the responses still include the
unmeritorious objections. As such,
Plaintiff cannot determine whether Defendant’s responses and production as to
any of Plaintiff’s requests are/is complete.
(Id., p.1:22-23). Further,
Defendant did not produce any documents responsive to requests 37-41. (Id., p.1:23-24; p.2:13-14)
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. ¶¶21-24).
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.