Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01357, Date: 2023-10-30 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: 23CHCV01357 Hearing Date: October 30, 2023 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 10/30/23
Case #22CHCV01357
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Requests for
Production of Documents, Set 1)
Motion filed on 7/7/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Marcos Frias Solis
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors LLC
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is granted. Further responses are due and sanctions are
payable within 30 days.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of Plaintiff Marcos Frias Solis’
(Plaintiff) purchase of a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado (the Vehicle) on
6/2/19. Plaintiff contends he has
presented the Vehicle to Defendant General Motors LLC’s (Defendant) authorized
facilities on multiple occasions for repair of defects related to the brake
system malfunction, transmission, transmission control module, torque
converter, check engine light and other issues without success. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant has
refused to repurchase or repair the Vehicle.
On 12/12/22, Plaintiff filed this action against
Defendant for violation of the Song-Beverly Act. On 1/11/23, Plaintiff served Defendant with
Requests for Production, Set 1. (Brande
Decl.). On 2/14/23, Defendant served
unverified responses. Id. The
responses included objections to Requests 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38 and
39. Id.
On 4/10/23, Plaintiff sent his first meet and confer
correspondence to Defendant. (Id.,
Ex.5). Defendant did not respond,
therefore, Plaintiff made further efforts.
(Id., Ex.6). On 5/2/23,
Defendant indicated that it would send Plaintiff verifications and responsive
documents as soon as they were available.
Id. After further
follow-up, on 5/24/23, Plaintiff received the verifications. Id.
On 5/30/23, Plaintiff made a further effort to meet and confer and
requested a two-week extension of the deadline to file a motion to compel. Id.
The request for an extension was granted; however, Defendant failed to
meet and confer. Id.
Therefore, on 7/7/23, Plaintiff filed and served the
instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant to provide further
responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set 1, numbers 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, 32, 37, 38 and 39 within 10 days.
Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,845.00
against Defendant. Defendant has opposed
the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the opposition.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s objections (numbers 1-10) to the declaration
of Darshnik Meet Singh Brar are overruled.
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).
The subject document requests (numbers 27-32 and 37-39)
seek documents related to Defendant’s policies and procedures for how Defendant
handles consumer warranty claims and repurchase requests. Defendant has responded to the requests with
various objections based on overbreadth, vagueness, ambiguity, relevance,
burden, proprietary/trade secret information, attorney-client privilege and
attorney work product.
Whether or not documents responsive to the requests exist
may provide information as to whether Defendant has a policy which violates the
Song-Beverly Act and/or whether or not Defendant willfully violated the
Song-Beverly Act when it refused to replace or repurchase Plaintiff’s
vehicle. See Oregel (1995)
90 CA4th 1094, 1104; Johnson (2005) 35 C4th 1191, 1198-1200; Kwan
(1994) 23 CA4th 174, 186.
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.
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.
To the extent that any of the requests actually seek confidential,
proprietary and/or trade secret information, the Court finds that a the LASC
Model Protective Order which Plaintiff indicates that he is amenable to
entering will adequately protect Defendant’s interests. (See Defendant’s Separate Statement,
p.5:1-4; Reply p.5:8-10).
The Court notes that Plaintiff indicates in the reply
that despite Defendant’s representations to the contrary in the opposition,
Defendant has not produced: (1) CA CEC Training Materials; (2) CAC and TAC
spreadsheet; (3) Call Center Policies & Procedures; (4) Service Manual; (5)
Service Policy & Procedure Manual; and (6) Standard Provisions of Dealer
Agreement. (See Brar Decl. ¶3;
Opp. p.1:6-25; Brande Decl. ¶4).
The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions
against Defendant for its failure to comply with its discovery obligations in
the amount of $2,845.00. CCP
2031.310(h); (Brande Decl. ¶9).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted. Further responses are due and sanctions are
payable within 30 days.