Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00060, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV00060 Hearing Date: September 1, 2022 Dept: A
22CMCV00060
Anselma Olmedo De Ceja v. General Motors, LLC
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I. BACKGROUND
The complaint alleges that
Plaintiff purchased a defective vehicle manufactured and distributed by
Defendant. Defendant failed to repair
within a reasonable number of attempts and refused to repurchase the vehicle. Plaintiff
alleges violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff requests an order to
compel Defendant to respond to document requests to which Defendant made
meritless objections. The requests sought internal investigation records
relating to a power train defect in 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 vehicles made
by Defendant. Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendant to resolve Defendant’s
objections without success.
Defendant contends that Defendant
has timely responded to all discovery requests and produced documents.
Plaintiff does not need any more documents. In the spirit of compromise,
Defendant offered to supplement responses that Plaintiff sought in this motion,
but Plaintiff ignored Defendant’s offer. Other courts have denied similar
discovery motions because they were unnecessarily burdensome. Defendant’s
objections to the discovery are well founded and should be sustained.
In reply, Plaintiff contends that
Defendant has not produced the vast majority of documents requested by
Plaintiff. Plaintiff made numerous attempts to meet and confer, but Defendant
continues to stand by its objections. The discovery sought is relevant and
discoverable. Plaintiff objects to defense counsel’s declaration which contains
conclusory statements that lack foundation.
III.
DISCUSSION
A motion to compel further
responses to requests for production of documents is proper where Plaintiff
believes the statement of compliance is incomplete, a representation of
inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive and/or an objection
in the response is without merit or too general. Code Civ. Proc., §2031.310. The parties have
met and conferred informally and with the court without resolution.
The scope of discovery is
liberally construed in favor of disclosure “as a matter of right unless
statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.” Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court of Merced County (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355, 377-378. The broad scope of permissible
discovery includes “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject
matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion
made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.
The court file does not reflect
that the parties participated in an informal discovery conference with the
court. The parties are admonished to adhere to the department’s requirement of
an IDC with the court prior to hearing motions to compel further discovery
responses. See Courtroom Information for Department A at https://www.lacourt.org/courtroominformation/ui/result.aspx.
To prevail on a claim for
violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“the Act”) Plaintiff’s
burden is to establish that “(1) the vehicle had a nonconformity covered by the
express warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the
vehicle (the nonconformity element); (2) the vehicle was presented to an
authorized representative of the manufacturer of the vehicle for repair (the
presentation element); and (3) the manufacturer or his representative did not
repair the nonconformity after a reasonable number of repair attempts (the
failure to repair element). " Oregel v.
American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.
The Act requires that "the
manufacturer [] maintain or [] designate and authorize service and repair
facilities in the state (Civ. Code, § 1793.2, subd.
(a)(1)(A)); i.e., usually, automobile dealerships with service departments
thereby making a manufacturer capable of becoming aware of every failed repair
attempt.” Krotin v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 294, 303. Therefore, Defendant’s prior
knowledge of the alleged defects in the subject vehicle and in vehicles of the
same year, make, and model and Defendant’s attempts to comply with its
statutory obligations to repair and/or replace are relevant.
In response to the discovery,
Defendant is obligated to make affirmative representations of whether the
specific documents requested exist and that a diligent search and inquiry was
made and what if any documents were withheld as specifically identified in a
privilege log, whether the inability to comply is because the particular item
or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or
stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or
control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and
address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party
to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Code
Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.230, 2031.240.
Requests Nos. 7, 10, and 34
Plaintiff generally
characterizes this category as documents relating to warranty and vehicle
repurchase policies, procedures, and practices including warranty and procedure
manuals provided to authorized repair facilities from 2020 to the present. Defendant
objects to the request because Plaintiff did not limit the request to the
subject vehicle at issue. However, the scope of documents extending to vehicles
of the same make and model (“other vehicle evidence”) is relevant because Plaintiff
must establish Defendant’s knowledge of the power train defect in the same
vehicle as stated previously. The Act requires the manufacturer to designate
service and repair facilities throughout the state which enable the
manufacturer to become aware of every failed repair attempt. Krotin 38 Cal.App.4th at 303. Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217
Cal.App.4th 138, 154 [Testimony about a defective transmission installed in
plaintiff’s truck and other trucks and what the manufacturer did to notify
dealers and technicians about problems with this transmission model was
“certainly probative and not unduly prejudicial."].
Defendant’s
repurchase policies and procedures are equally relevant to Plaintiff’s burden
of establishing Defendant’s non-compliance with its obligations under the Act
to reasonably attempt to repair the vehicle. Oregel at 1101. This is relevant
to the recovery of civil penalties if the buyer can show that “the
manufacturer's failure to comply was willful. The penalty is important ‘as a
deterrent to deliberate violations. Without such a provision, a seller or
manufacturer who knew the consumer was entitled to a refund or replacement
might nevertheless be tempted to refuse compliance in the hope the consumer
would not persist, secure in the knowledge its liability was limited to refund
or replacement.’” Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 136.
To
establish this violation, the jury can consider whether “(1) the manufacturer
knew the vehicle had not been repaired within a reasonable period or after a
reasonable number of attempts, and (2) whether the manufacturer had a written
policy on the requirement to repair or replace. (Id. at pp. 185-186.)” Jensen
at 136.
Defendant’s
objections are without merit. Defendant has not established that compliance
with the request will be unreasonably burdensome and oppressive. Defendant’s remedy is to move for a
protective order, not refuse to respond or unilaterally impose limitations on
Plaintiff’s discovery. To support an objection of oppression, there must be
some showing by the opposing party either of an intent to create an
unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate
with the result sought. West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417. Oppression must not be equated with
burden; “[t]he objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence
showing the quantum of work required, … .” Id. Defendant has not met its
burden.
Defendant refuses to produce
documents that it determines constitutes trade secret or proprietary
information or is protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defendant is required to provide a privilege
log of all the documents at issue and the specific objection so that the court
can determine whether a privilege applies. Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240 subp. (b).
The privilege log must contain clear descriptions of the documents as set forth
in the statute.
Requests Nos. 16, 19-20, 59-61
Plaintiff generally
categorizes these requests as documents concerning internal analysis or
investigation of the power train defect in vehicles of the same year, make, and
model. The request is relevant to Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant was
aware of the defect and was unable to service the vehicle to conform to express
warranties after a reasonable number of attempts. Complaint, ¶ 21. The request
is not vague or ambiguous as Defendant contends. Nor is it improper for
Plaintiff to “assume” that there are alleged defects; this is Plaintiff’s
central allegation. See Plaintiff’s Sep. Stmt. 13:6-7. Defendant’s identical
objections on grounds the request is burdensome or oppressive, or subject to a
privilege is not established.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of
Documents is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant
responses and production of documents within 10 calendar days of the court’s order.
Where applicable, Defendant is ordered to provide a privilege log in the form
set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240 subp. (b). Plaintiff did not request imposition of
sanctions.
The parties are further
admonished to schedule an informal discovery conference with the court prior to
filing future motions to compel further responses.