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.