Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV19878, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV19878    Hearing Date: August 29, 2022    Dept: 74

21STCV19878           MARIA DOLORES GUARDADO vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One and for Monetary Sanctions Pursuant to C.C.P. Section 2031.320(B) against General Motors LLC and Erskine Law Group, PC. in the Amount of $1,791.65.

TENTATIVE RULING:  The motion is GRANTED, in part.  The Court further limits Requests Nos. 13-16 to repurchases and owners of 2018 Chevrolet Silverado vehicles “in California” involving the same “conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.”  The Court also limits Requests Nos. 34 and 35 to TSBs and recalls issued for vehicles in California of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE related to the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.

Defendant is ordered to serve further verified, code compliant responses to Requests Nos. 13-16 and 34-35, as limited herein, within 20 days and to produce all responsive documents within 30 days. To the extent Defendant claims the attorney-client or work product privileges apply over any of the responsive documents or information, it shall simultaneously serve a privilege log with the document production that, at a minimum, identifies each document for which a privilege is claimed, its author, recipients, the date of preparation, the privilege claimed, and any other information necessary to evaluate the privilege. Defendant shall remove all other objections from its supplemental responses.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Background

On May 26, 2021, Plaintiff Maria Dolores Guardado filed this lemon law action against Defendant General Motors, LLC. The complaint asserts two causes of action under the Song Beverly Act, seeks civil penalties, and alleges Plaintiff’s 2018 Chevrolet Silverado suffered from “transmission, electrical and other defects.”

Motion

On August 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for Production of Documents Nos. 13-16 and 34-35.

Opposition

In opposition, Defendant contends Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith, Defendant has produced a set of documents sufficient for Plaintiff’s claims, it need not produce documents regarding similar defects in similar vehicles, and the requests seek trade secret or confidential information.

Reply

Plaintiff’s reply was due on August 22, 2022. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(c). As of August 24, 2022, no reply had been received.

Irrelevant Citations

The Court disregards Defendant’s citation to hearing transcripts in other cases within the Los Angeles Superior Court as they have no precedential value. (Brar Decl. Ex. A-B.) Defendant’s counsel inaccurately suggests Exhibit B contains a transcript from a prior case before this department, attaching a transcript from a hearing before Judge Richard Fruin. (Brar Decl. ¶ 10 (“Similarly, in another matter, Your Honor summarized . . .”).)

Motion to Compel Further Responses

Standard

The propounding party may bring a motion to compel further responses to requests for production if it believes the statement of compliance is incomplete, the representation of an inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or if an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310.) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.040; 2031.310(b)(2)), and a separate statement. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1345.)

As an additional requirement only as to requests for production, the motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).) “[T]hat burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal. App. 4th 443, 447 (2002).) The opposing party bears the burden of justifying any objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 97-98.)

Discovery at Issue and Meet and Confer Efforts

Plaintiff’s motion is accompanied by the required separate statement and meet and confer declaration.

Plaintiff served the First Set of Request for Production of Documents upon Defendant on September 22, 2021. (Yashar Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) Defendant provided responses on October 21, 2021. (Id. ¶ 6, Ex. 2.) Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter on October 28, 2021 addressing the requests at issue. (Id. ¶ 7, Ex. 3.) Defendant responded on December 14, 2021. (Id. ¶ 8,  Ex. 4.) The parties entered into a stipulated protective order, which the Court signed on December 27, 2021. (Id. ¶ 9, Ex. 5.)

Plaintiff states she attempted to schedule four Informal Discovery Conferences, but Defendant failed to provide the required joint statement. (Id. ¶ 10.) The motion recent was taken off calendar on August 2, 2022. In opposition, Defendant contends that while Plaintiff reserved Informal Discovery Conferences with the Court, “Plaintiff has not made any contact with GM to discuss the substance of this discovery dispute since October 2021.” (Brar Decl. ¶ 7.) The parties should have been able to resolve the issues presented herein without court intervention. However, the Court finds the meet and confer effort sufficient to proceed to the merits of the motion.

While Plaintiff does not affirmatively demonstrate the motion is timely, Defendant does not oppose the motion on this basis.

Defendant Must Provide Further Responses and Produce Responsive Documents

Request No. 13 seeks “All DOCUMENTS IDENTIFYTNG repurchases made by YOU of the 2018 Chevrolet Silverado vehicles and allegedly containing any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU for repair.”

Request No. 14 seeks “All DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, or referring to complaints by owners of the 2018 Chevrolet Silverado vehicle regarding any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.”

Request No. 15 seeks “All surveys, reports, summaries, or other DOCUMENTS in which owners of the 2018 Chevrolet Silverado, vehicle have reported to YOU problems with any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.”

Request No. 16 seeks “All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, relate, or refer to the numbers of owners of 2018 Chevrolet Silverado vehicle who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.”

Request No. 34 seeks “All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to technical service bulletins which have been issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Request No. 35 seeks “All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to recalls which have been issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Defendant responded to Requests Nos. 13-16 with objections and stated no documents would be produced. Defendant asserted objections to Requests Nos. 34 and 35 and then stated it would produce “a list of technical service bulletins [and recalls] for vehicles of the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE [and] After it has produced a list of TSBs [and recalls], GM will - at Plaintiff's request - search for and produce, if located, copies of a reasonable number of TSBs [and recalls,] if any, that Plaintiff has identified as relevant to the conditions alleged in Plaintiff's complaint.”

Plaintiff’s motion and separate statement generally demonstrate good cause for production of the documents sought as the requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding Defendant’s knowledge of the defects at issue. Once good cause has been shown, a respondent has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses. (Fairmont, supra, 22 Cal.4th at 255; Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 97-98.)

Contrary to Defendant’s contentions, other customer’s complaints and defects in the vehicles of the same year, make, and model are relevant and discoverable. In Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154, the court upheld a trial court’s determination that evidence of “the transmission model Ford installed in plaintiff’s truck and other vehicles” should not be excluded from trial as prejudicial in a Song–Beverly Act case brought by a single plaintiff.  Therefore, relevant discovery may extend beyond Plaintiff’s specific vehicle. (Cf. Elsworth v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 540, 555 (“Evidence of prior accidents is admissible to prove a defective condition, knowledge, or the cause of an accident, provided that the circumstances of the other accidents are similar and not too remote.”); Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 186 (“A decision made without the use of reasonably available information germane to that decision is not a reasonable, good faith decision.”).)

Moreover, as to Requests Nos. 13-16, Defendant stated in its meet and confer letter that “GM is willing to supplement its document production to include other customer complaints within GM's ESI database that are substantially similar to Plaintiff's complaint(s) concerning the alleged defects, for vehicles purchased in California of the same year, make and model as the Subject Vehicle” pursuant to a protective order. (Yashar Decl. ¶ 8, Ex, 4.) Plaintiff signed the protective order, and the Court entered the parties’ protective order on December 27, 2021. Despite its representation of further production, Defendant did not produce any additional documents. (Yashar Decl. ¶¶ 10-11; Opp. at 3-23.) Additionally, further production pursuant to the protective order would not absolve Defendant of its obligation to provide further verified, code-compliant responses consistent with its production. Plaintiff is entitled to a verified response that Defendant has produced all responsive documents within its possession, custody, and control.

As to Requests Nos. 34 and 35, Defendant noted it produced the list of TSBs and recalls that may apply and requested that Plaintiff “direct GM as to specific TSBs that plaintiff seeks from the list previously provided [and] GM will endeavor to produce those specific TSBs, provided they are relevant to this case.” (Yashar Decl. Ex. 4.) In its opposition, Defendant contends “there is no current record of any field actions, including any recalls, that GM issued for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” (Opp. at 6:8-9.) However, Plaintiff is entitled to a verified response to that effect.

Defendant also raises its objection based upon “trade secret material.” (Opp. at 6:17-8:11.) Defendant fails to justify this objection, relying upon the October 25, 2018 declaration of Huizhen Lu, which does not contain any specific facts relating to the requests at issue or the specific documents falling within the requests. This declaration is irrelevant and insufficient. Moreover, the protective order would resolve these concerns.

Requests Nos. 13-16 are appropriately limited to the vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle that reportedly suffered from the same issues. Requests Nos. 34 and 35 exceed the scope of this litigation as they are not limited to the issues for which Plaintiff presented the vehicle for repair or the alleged issues with Plaintiff’s vehicles. Moreover, all Plaintiff’s requests are not limited to vehicles in California. The Court shall limit the scope of these requests and Defendant must provide complete, verified, code-compliant responses and produce responsive documents.

Accordingly, the Court further limits Requests Nos. 13-16 to repurchases and owners of 2018 Chevrolet Silverado vehicles “in California” involving the same “conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.”

The Court also limits Requests Nos. 34 and 35 to TSBs and recalls issued for vehicles in California of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE related to the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.

The motion is GRANTED as to each request at issue as modified above.

Sanctions

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(h), “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Plaintiff’s motion sought sanctions in the amount of $1,791.65. The Court declines to impose sanction as both parties acted with substantial justification in making and opposing the motion.