Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV30793, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV30793 Hearing Date: May 16, 2023 Dept: 31
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 16 and 19 is GRANTED subject to limitations stated, and RPD Nos. 20, 21, 32, and 42 are DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.
Background
On August 19, 2021, Plaintiff Yuriria Cerezo Torrez filed this instant
action against Defendant General Motors LLC and Does 1 through 50. The
Complaint asserts causes of action for:
(1) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2(d);
(2) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2(b);
(3) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2(a)(3);
(4) Breach of Express Warranty (Civil Code Sections 1791.2(a)
and 1794); and
(5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civil
Code Sections 1791.1 and 1794)
On March
30, 2022, Plaintiff filed this instant motion. On December 9, 2022, the Court
held an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). The Court noted that the parties
resolved most their discovery issues as Defendant has agreed to produce the
documents described in the Attachment “A” to the Joint CMC Statement Addendum. The
Court stated: “Plaintiff also requests production of emails relating to
internal investigations. It is the Court’s view that this request is overbroad
and may be burdensome to Defendant. In addition the Court is not persuaded that
a whole sale production of email documents will produce relevant information or
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Narrowly tailored email
communications could be requested if Plaintiff is able to identify specific
individuals whose communications might contain relevant information. Plaintiff
shall notify the Court at least 2 weeks before the hearing whether Plaintiff
intends to proceed with his motion to compel.”
The
original hearing date was October 7, 2022, which was continued to March 17,
2023. Following the IDC, on January 31, 2023, the hearing for this motion was
again continued to May 16, 2023.
Legal
Standard
“Any party may obtain discovery .
. . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things,
land or other property, and electronically stored information in the
possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (a).)
“The party to whom a demand for
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond
separately to each item or category of item by any of the following: (1) A
statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection,
copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying,
testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section
2031.030 and any related activities[;] (2) A representation that the party
lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing,
or sampling of a particular item or category of item[; or] (3) An objection to
the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).)
“On receipt of a response to a
demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may
move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding
party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with
the demand is incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is
inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] (3) An objection in the response is
without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)
A demanding party’s motion for an
order compelling a further response must “set forth the facts showing good
cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) Further, a demanding party’s motion for an order
compelling a further response must “be accompanied by a meet and confer
declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Id., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)
Pursuant to Section 2016.040, “[a] meet and confer declaration in support of a
motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an
informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Id., §
2016.040.)
A demanding party’s motion for an
order compelling a further response must, additionally, be accompanied by a
separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3).) The
separate statement must comply with the requirements set forth in California
Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subdivision (c). (Id., rule 3.1345, subd.
(c).)
Evidentiary
Objections
The Court
SUSTAINS Plaintiff’s objections to Declarations of Alexandria O. Pappas No. 5
and OVERRULES Nos. 1-4; 6-9.
Discussion
Plaintiff moves
to compel further responses to his Request for Production of Documents, Set
One, Nos. 16, 19, 20, 21, 32, and 42.
Plaintiff’s
Requests seek the following general categories of documents: (1) those relating
to Defendant’s internal investigation and analysis of the Powertrain Defect in Plaintiff’s
vehicle and other customers’ vehicles (Nos. 16, 19, 20, and 21), and (2) those
relating to Defendant’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, procedures,
and practice (i.e., Nos. 32 and 42).
Requests for
Production Nos. 16, 19, 20, 21
Requests
No. 16
All DOCUMENTS, including
but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails,
concerning or relating to any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR
behalf regarding the POWERTRAIN DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model
as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request shall be interpreted to include, but not
be limited to, any such investigation to determine the root cause of such
POWERTRAIN DEFECT, any such investigation to design a permanent repair
procedure for such POWERTRAIN DEFECT, any such investigation into the failure
rates of parts associated with such POWERTRAIN DEFECT, any cost analysis for
implementing proposed repair procedures, any savings analysis not implementing
a proposed repair procedure, etc.]
Requests
No. 19
All DOCUMENTS, including
but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails,
concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims
related to the POWERTRAIN DEFECT of vehicles the same year, make, and model as the
SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited to any databases in YOUR possession with
information from dealers, service departments, parts departments, or warranty departments,
and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported
failure.
Requests
No. 20
All DOCUMENTS, including
but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails,
concerning failure rates of vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT
VEHICLE as a result of the POWERTRAIN DEFECT.
Requests
No. 21
All DOCUMENTS, including
but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails,
concerning or relating to any fixes for the POWERTRAIN DEFECT in vehicles of
the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
Defendant’s
Responses
Defendant’s responses are
largely the same and contain similar boilerplate objections such as terms
within the request being vague and ambiguous, that the request is overbroad and
irrelevant, that the request seeks confidential, proprietary, and trade secret
information, and that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege
and/or work product doctrine.
As to the relevance of these discovery
requests, Plaintiff alleges that his vehicle suffered from various defects,
including the POWERTRAIN DEFECT, that Defendant’s authorized repair facilities
have failed to repair within a reasonable number of opportunities. Plaintiff
argues that the requested documents may show Defendant’s awareness of the
defects as well as the nature and scope of the defect to assist Plaintiff’s
expert in assessing its impact on Plaintiff’s vehicle.
In opposition, Defendant argues that the discovery
requests are irrelevant to this case as they pertain to documents related to
other vehicles and other warranty claims, which do not say anything about
Plaintiff’s vehicle and are not relevant to this litigation. Defendant also
points out that this is a breach of warranty case and not products liability.
Although the relevance of the discovery
requests is not immediately clear, given the broad scope of relevance within
discovery, the Court finds that Plaintiff may be entitled to the information
sought in the discovery requests. However, as the Court noted in the 12/9/22
Minute Order, the requests are overbroad and may be burdensome. It is
reasonable to assume that Defendant has numerous emails and electronic
information relating to internal investigations. The Court thus limits requests nos. 16 and 19 to
documents concerning any internal analysis or investigation regarding the powertrain
defects in GM vehicles. Plaintiff is not entitled to any and all emails, as
such a request is unduly burdensome on Defendant. Although the information may
be relevant, Plaintiff has not shown good cause justifying the demand for
documents requested in no. 19. If Plaintiff
is able to identify specific individuals from whom they seek emails, Plaintiff
may be entitled to such communications. Plaintiff must also set a reasonable
time period of the email communications. Until the request is narrowed,
Plaintiff will not be entitled to email communications or other documents. As
to requests nos. 20 and 21, the Court finds that the information requested is
duplicative of the information that would be responsive to request no. 16 and
19. Accordingly, Defendant need not provide further responses to requests nos. 20
and 21.
Based on
the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to request for
production, set one, request no. 16 and 19 is GRANTED subject to the
limitations described above. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to
requests nos. 20 and 21 is DENIED.
Requests for
Production Nos. 32 and 42
Requests
No. 32
All DOCUMENTS relied upon
by YOU in support of YOUR contention that YOU were under no obligation to
promptly replace or repurchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
Requests
No. 42
All
DOCUMENTS which evidence YOUR organizational charts of people within YOUR
customer service call center or prelitigation department from 2017 to the
present.
As to
Request No. 32, Defendant contends that it sufficiently responded by producing the
New Vehicle Limited Warranty, any Service Request Activity Report(s), any
incidentally obtained repair orders and the Global Warranty History Report
applicable to the Plaintiff’s Traverse. (Liu Decl., Ex. 5.) Thus, Plaintiff’s
motion to compel further as to request no. 32 is rendered moot.
As to
Request No. 42, the Court finds this request to be neither relevant nor reasonably
calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s
motion to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 16 and 19 is GRANTED subject to
limitations stated, and RPD Nos. 20, 21, 32, and 42 are DENIED.