Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00295, Date: 2023-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CMCV00295    Hearing Date: October 26, 2023    Dept: A

22CMCV00295 Julian Israel Guzman Zarate, et al. v. General Motors, LLC

Thursday, October 27, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S MAY 16, 2023, DISCOVERY ORDER; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

I.        BACKGROUND

       The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs bought a vehicle made by Defendant that developed defects in the electrical, transmission, and braking systems. Defendant failed to repair or repurchase the vehicle. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

II.      ARGUMENTS

       On May 16, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents. Defendant was ordered to provide verified supplemental responses and a supplemental production by July 17, 2023. Plaintiff contends that the supplemental responses are not Code-compliant and the production is incomplete. Defendants produced documents unrelated to the vehicle and identified documents not actually produced.

       Defendant argues that the motion is moot since it complied with the Court’s order and provided supplemental responses to 16, 19, 20, and 21 and supplemental document production. Imposition of sanctions is improper.

       In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant did not produce all internal documents underlying its Technical Service Bulletins (TSB) or documents responsive to the request. Defendant improperly limited its response and produced only “cherry-picked” documents.

III.    LEGAL STANDARDS

       If a party fails to obey an order compelling further response, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction,” and either in lieu of, or in addition to a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Code, §. Proc., § 2031.310 subd. (1)).

       All the documents described in Requests 16, 19, 20, and 21, relate to internal investigation and root cause analysis documents regarding the specific symptoms detailed by Plaintiff relating to the transmission defect. Defendant’s supplemental responses purported to produce all documents “in whole,” that Defendant produced documents in its possession, custody and control, that were applicable to the same year, make, and model, and identified those documents by Bates stamp number.

       The statute requires a statement that the responding party will comply, that production will be allowed in whole or in part and affirm that all documents or things in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control will be included in the production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

The supplemental responses facially appear to comply with the foregoing statute, however, Plaintiffs contend that the actual production does not pertain to the transmission defect defined in Plaintiff’s discovery requests as follows:

“TRANSMISSION DEFECT shall be understood to mean such defects which result in symptoms including but not limited to: a bizarre clunking noises emitting from the transmission, jolting forward of the Vehicle on its own, erratic and harsh shifting, and delays when applying the brakes, and any other concern identified in the repair history for the subject 2020 GMC Sierra 1500; Vehicle Identification Number 1GTP8DED3LZ303431.” (Plaintiff’s Sep Stmt filed 4/11/23, 2:17-22.)

       Plaintiffs outlined the discrepancies in a letter to Defendant in an attempt to meet and confer as Defendant produced documents unrelated to the defect as defined (documents concerning clutch and hood harness), withheld spreadsheets it agreed to produce, engineering work orders were identified but not actually produced, a list of identified documents were not actually provided, and documents produced pertained to the wrong model year. Defendant did not provide the backup internal documents supporting the TSBs applicable to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. (Decl. of Alessandro Manno, Ex. 3.)

       Instead of responding to Plaintiffs’ specifically identified issues, Defendant filed an opposition that is substantively identical to its oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions to compel compliance in other cases. Defendant believes the motion is moot simply because it served supplemental responses regardless of whether the documents are relevant to the defects at issue or are actually produced. Production is incomplete as Plaintiffs described with specificity. (Manno Decl., Ex. 3.)  This does not reflect a good faith compliance with the Court’s order.

IV.    CONCLUSION

       Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to immediately comply with the Court’s order by meeting and conferring with Plaintiffs forthwith regarding the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ meet and confer letter and produce responsive documents within 10 days. The Court imposes prospective sanctions as requested by Plaintiffs of $500 for each day Defendant fails to produce the requested documents within the above time period. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.  (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4^th 566, 605.)