Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00171, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV00171 Hearing Date: September 26, 2023 Dept: A
22CMCV00171 Lizandro Gonzalez v.
General Motors, LLC
[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff bought
a vehicle made and distributed by Defendant. The vehicle suffered from
widespread defects that Defendant failed to repair within a reasonable number
of attempts in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff requests an order to compel Defendant’s further responses
to request for production of documents served on Defendant on August 19, 2022. Defendant
made boilerplate objections and refused to provide code-compliant responses.
In opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiff refused to narrow the
requests. Plaintiff did not meet and confer. Defendant offered to supplement if
Plaintiff signed a protective order. Defendant already produced responsive
documents.
Plaintiff did not file a reply brief by the due date.
III.
DISCUSSION
This Court has observed a dramatic increase in motions to compel
further responses to document requests as well as motions to compel defendant
car manufacturers to produce a person most qualified (“PMQ”) for deposition in
actions for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. This is the 12th
discovery motion involving General Motors’ failure to respond to a document or
produce a person most knowledgeable. The Court has previously articulated its
position with respect to the same issues raised in this motion.
The
parties’ meet and confer efforts do not appear to be made in good faith considering
the Court’s numerous rulings addressing each of the objections asserted and the
discoverability of certain topics typical of lemon law cases. With the
assistance of this Court’s prior rulings, the parties can easily resolve the repetitive
issues on these discovery motions. Discovery is “intended to
operate with a minimum of judicial intervention,” and a “central precept” of
the Civil Discovery Act is that discovery be self-executing. (Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants
(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.)
This motion raises the
same issues with respect to the discoverability of Defendant’s internal
analysis and investigations; warranty and vehicle repurchase policies,
procedures, and practices; and knowledge of the same or similar defects in
other vehicles of the same make and model. The parties are well versed on the
Court’s position on these same issues. Defendant repeatedly and improperly
fails to serve a privilege log, maintains objections without any supporting
evidence, unilaterally limits the scope of inquiry to Plaintiff’s vehicle
although the Court has previously discussed the discoverability of “other
vehicle evidence.” Defendant repeatedly contends that Plaintiff is not entitled
to the same or substantially the same documents or deposition testimony that
have been established as relevant and discoverable. This conduct unnecessarily
burdens the Court and Plaintiff.
California
trial courts have expansive authority to employ whatever procedures they see
fit, so long as they do not violate any statutory or legislative guidance. (Code
Civ. Proc. § 187.) In the discovery context, the Court has “broad discretion in
controlling the course of discovery and in making the various decisions
necessitated by discovery proceedings.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998)
67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.) Additionally, the Legislature “has granted the power
to every court to provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it.” (Hernandez
v. FCA US LLC (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 329, 338.
Accordingly, the Court orders both counsel to meet and confer with this Court’s prior rulings in
mind. If the parties are unable to
resolve all their issues prior to the continued hearing on the motion, they
must file a joint statement of items that remain in dispute. The joint
statement must list each category of inquiry remaining in dispute, Defendant’s
response and/or objection, and each party’s statement for why Defendant should or
should not produce a PMQ on that category of inquiry. With respect to the document request, the
parties are ordered to file a joint statement of each item remaining in dispute,
Defendant’s response, and why the document should or should not be produced.
The Court incorporates
its Addendum to Case Management Conference Order Re Song-Beverly Litigation on
Discovery served on Defendant on September 21, 2023. The parties are ordered to
comply with the guidelines set forth therein.
If
the parties resolve their issues, the moving party must take the motion off
calendar using the online reservation system.
If they are unable to resolve their issues, they must also file short
(no more than five pages) briefs and declarations detailing their efforts to
meet and confer.
Based on the foregoing,
the Court continues the hearing on this motion to