Judge: Michael L. Stern, Case: 23STCV06330, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV06330 Hearing Date: January 23, 2024 Dept: 62
Superior Court
of California County of Los
Angeles Central District Stanley Mosk
Dept. 62 Honorable Rolf M
Treu, Judge |
|||
GERARDO
GUERRERO and MARIA GUERRERO, |
Plaintiffs, |
Case No.: |
23STCV06330 |
vs. |
|
[Tentative]
RULING |
|
GENERAL
MOTORS LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, |
Defendants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing Date: January 23, 2024
Moving
Parties: Plaintiff Gerardo
Guerrero
Responding Party: Defendant General Motors LLC
Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One
The court considered the moving and opposition
papers.
RULING
Plaintiff Gerardo Guerrero’s Motion
to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One Nos.
16-21 is GRANTED. Defendant to comply within 20 days.
BACKGROUND
On March 22, 2023, Plaintiffs
Gerardo Guerrero and Maria Guerrero filed a Complaint against Defendant and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive for Violation of Statutory Obligations
(Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act CA Civil Code §§ 1790-1795.8). The
Complaint alleges Defendant sold Plaintiff a 2021 Chevrolet Traverse that
contained or developed multiple defects and Defendant was unable and/or failed
to service or repair the subject vehicle within a reasonable number of
attempts.
On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff
Gerardo Guerrero filed this instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Defendant filed an
opposition on January 9, 2024. Plaintiff’s reply was due on January 16, 2024.
As of January 17, 2024, no reply has been filed.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
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
Gerardo Guerrero propounded Request for Production of Documents, Set One Nos.
16-21 on July 28, 2023. (Sue Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. 2.) On August 30, 2023, Defendant
served unverified responses with the verifications and document production
received on September 15, 2023 without proof of service. (Id. ¶ 13, Ex.
3-4.) Therefore, this present motion was properly noticed because it was filed
forty-five (45) days after Plaintiff received Defendant’s verifications and
document production to the propounded discovery.
Meet and Confer
Plaintiff
advances the declaration of his counsel of record, Jonathan Sue stating
compliance with the meet and confer requirement of the Code of Civil Procedure
sections 2030.300, subdivision (b) and 2031.310, subdivision (b). Sue avers
that he sent Defendant a meet and confer letter on July 28, 2023 in an attempt
to address any potential issues that may arise regarding discovery of
electronically stored information, search terms, and a litigation hold. (Sue
Decl. ¶ 15, Ex. 5.) Sue further avers that he sent another meet and confer on
September 12, 2023 outlining Plaintiff’s issues with Defendant’s discovery,
addressing specific categories of insufficient production. (Id. ¶ 16,
Ex. 6.)
Sue
declares a second meet and confer letter was sent to Defendant on October 3,
2023 but Defendant replied the next day addressing the September 12 meet and
confer letter and a proposed protective order attached. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19,
Ex. 7-8.) On October 10, 2023, Defendant sent another response to the October
3, 2020 meet and confer letter with a blank model protective order for
Plaintiff to review and sign. (Id. ¶ 20, Ex. 9.) Also, Sue avers that
Plaintiff executed and returned one of the proposed orders along with a third
meet and confer letter on October 23, 2023 but neither the proposed order has
been filed nor supplemental document production been received. (Id. ¶¶
22-23, Ex. 10-11.)
Therefore,
Plaintiff has sufficiently met and conferred on this matter before bringing the
instant motion.
Merits of the Motion
Plaintiff
moves for an order to strike Defendant’s objections and compel further
responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One Nos. 16-21.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to provide adequate responses to
Plaintiff’s requests, which seek documents directly relevant to their claims
under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Specifically, Plaintiff contends
the requested documents relate to Defendant’s internal investigation and
analysis of the defects plaguing Plaintiff’s vehicle and establishing that
Defendant previously knew of such defects but failed to repurchase the subject
vehicle. As such, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s boilerplate objections are not
proper objections.
In
opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently meet and confer
in good faith because the letters without providing substantive reasoning or
analysis declared Defendant objections waived and demanded Defendant produce
all manner of documents without objections. As discussed above, Plaintiff has
provided evidence to support he did meet and confer with Defendant in good
faith to resolve this matter before filing this present motion, thus the argument
here is moot. Defendant further argues its objections are well-founded.
Defendant contends Plaintiffs do not need documents about other vehicles and
that Plaintiffs must specify the non-conformity about which they are
complaining, so the issue is not ripe. This argument is unavailing as Defendant
cited to unpublished case law without citing to any binding legal authority to
support its contention.
Moreover,
Defendant argues Request Nos. 16-21 are facially overbroad because they seek
all documents relating to Defendant’s internal analyses of vaguely defined
“defects” in Traverse vehicles and all documents relating to other similar
complaints in Traverse vehicles. Defendant asserts these requests are not
appropriate in a simple breach of warranty case. Additionally, Defendant argues
that Plaintiff’s requests impermissibly seek trade secret material and other
protected information. Lastly, Defendant contends some of the documents that
Plaintiff request may include Personally Identifiable Information, so it should
not be compelled to produce such information.
The
Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to code-compliant objection-less further
responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One Nos. 16-21. The
requests are specific as to documents relating to the same year (2021), make
(Chevrolet), and model (Traverse) of the subject vehicle at issue in this case
and adequately defines “exhaust system defect” in the propounded discovery
request. Furthermore, Plaintiff indicates that he executed and returned one of
the proposed protective orders to Defendant, which Defendant admits in its
opposition.
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of
Documents, Set One Nos. 16-21 is GRANTED. Defendant to comply within 20 days.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice of ruling.