Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV44540, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV44540 Hearing Date: April 13, 2023 Dept: 71
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
DEPARTMENT 71
TENTATIVE RULING
|
HADI
SABBAGHZADEH, vs. GENERAL
MOTORS LLC. |
Case No.:
21STCV44540 Hearing Date: April 13, 2023 |
Plaintiff Hadi
Sabbaghzadeh’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of
Documents (Set One) is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant shall provide
supplemental responses in compliance with this order within 30 days.
Plaintiff Hadi
Sabbaghzadeh’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
(Set One) is granted. Defendant shall provide
supplemental responses in compliance with this order within 30 days.
Plaintiff Hadi
Sabbaghzadeh’s Motion to Compel Defendant to produce its Person Most
Knowledgeable for deposition and all responsive documents is granted in part
and denied in part. Defendant’s Person Most
Knowledgeable is to appear and produce
documents within 15 days, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
Plaintiff
Hadi Sabbaghzadeh (“Sabbaghzadeh”) (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling
Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”) (“Defendant”) to provide further responses
to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) Nos. 5, 7, and 16. (Notice of Motion RFP pgs. 1-3; C.C.P. §§2031.010,
2031.310, 2031.320.)
Plaintiff
moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Special
Interrogatories (Set One) (“SROG”) Nos. 14, 20, 39, and 43. (Notice of Motion SROG pgs. 1-2; C.C.P.
§2030.300.)
Plaintiff
moves for an order compelling Defendant to produce its Person Most
Knowledgeable (“PMK”) for deposition and to produce all responsive documents. (Notice of Motion PMK pgs. 1-2; C.C.P.
§2025.450.)
A. Motion
to Compel Further Responses to RFP
Meet
and Confer
Plaintiff’s
counsel declares that on or about July 28, 2022, after reviewing Defendant’s
supplemental responses to discovery and document production, they sent
Defendant’s counsel a meet and confer letter laying out the deficiencies in its
responses and requested a response within seven days. (Decl. of Bohloul ¶21, Exh. S.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares on September 8,
2022, after having received no response from Defendant for over a month, Plaintiff’s
counsel called and emailed Defendant’s counsel and requested a telephonic meet
and confer and requested Defendant to extend Plaintiff’s time to file his
discovery motion in order to allow both parties to properly meet and confer,
and Defendant’s never responded to this request. (Decl. of Bohloul ¶22, Exh. T.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares that on
September 9, 2022, they sent a follow up email to defense counsel regarding the
request for a telephonic meet and confer and extension of Plaintiff’s time to
file the instant motion, and Defendant’s counsel did not respond to the request. (Decl. of Bohloul ¶23, Exh. T.) Plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable and
good faith attempt to resolve discovery issues outside of court. (C.C.P. §§2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).)
Background
On
March 1, 2022, Plaintiff served Request for Production of Documents (Set One)
on Defendant requesting production of documents and responses no later than
thirty (30) days after service. (Decl.
of Bohloul ¶8, Exhs. D, E.) On March 31,
2022, Defendant served unverified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests
and did not produce requested documents.
Decl. of Bohloul ¶9, Exhs. F, G.)
On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. On March 28, 2023, Defendant filed its
opposition. As of the date of this
hearing, Plaintiff has not filed a reply.
Motion
to Compel Further
Unless
there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, the
moving party’s burden is met simply by a showing or relevance. (TBG Insurance Services Corp. v. Superior
Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002)
95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)
Plaintiff
has demonstrated good cause for requesting the materials sought in its RFP. (C.C.P. § 2031.310(b)(1) [stating a
motion for an order compelling further responses to a production request “shall
set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought…”];
Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113,
1117.) Here, Plaintiff seeks documents
sought by this request are probative to show that Plaintiff presented the
Subject Vehicle to Defendant for repair of the defects; how the defects
substantially impair the Subject Vehicle’s use, value and safety; whether the
defects were covered under warranty; whether Defendant’s repair attempts were
successful; and whether the repairs were covered under warranty.
Defendant’s
responses to discovery were unverified. Defendant did not secure an extension
to serve verified responses or to obtain verifications. As such, all objections
are waived, including ones based on privilege or on the protection for work
product. (C.C.P. §2031.300(a).) Defendant has not served a supplemental
response that is in substantial compliance with its discovery obligations and
Defendant has not filed a motion for relief with this Court under C.C.P.
§2031.300(a).
Plaintiff’s
motion to compel further responses to RFP (Set One) is granted in part and
denied in part. Defendant is to produce
the following documents:
1.
Defendant
shall produce all documents which refer, relate to or concern Plaintiff’s
acquisition of the Subject Vehicle, including the sales/lease file commonly
referred to as the deal jacket. [RFP No.
5.]
2.
Defendant
shall produce all repair orders pertaining to the Subject Vehicle from the date
of manufacture to the present date, including any and all versions of each
repair order (e.g., warranty copy, accounting copy, customer copy, etc.) and
any and all documents and printouts related to each repair order as maintained
by Defendant’s authorized repair facility(ies) in the ordinary course of
business. [RFP No. 7.]
3.
Defendant
shall produce Technical Service Bulletins for vehicles purchased in California
for the same year, make, and model of the Subject Vehicle. [RFP No. 16.]
4.
All
other requests for further production are DENIED.
5.
Defendant
shall provide supplemental responses in compliance with this order within 30
days.
B. Motion
to Compel Further Responses to SROG
Background
On
March 1, 2022, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Defendant
requesting answers to interrogatories no later than thirty (30) days after
service. (Decl. of Bohloul ¶8, Exhs. D,
E.) On March 31, 2022, Defendant did not
produce answers to the requested interrogatories. (Decl. of Bohloul ¶9, Exhs. F, G.) On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the
instant motion. On March 28, 2023,
Defendant filed its opposition. As of
the date of this hearing, Plaintiff has not filed a reply.
Motion
to Compel Further
“Discovery
may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any
discoverable matter.” (C.C.P. §§
2017.010; 2030.010(a); Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
1539; 1546-1547.) If the information
sought “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for
trial or facilitating settlement, its discovery is permissible.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48
Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611.)
Plaintiff’s SROGs seek the
identification of critical witnesses.
Specifically, Plaintiff seeks the identification witnesses who inspected
and tested the Subject Vehicle, those who performed warranty repairs on the Subject
Vehicle, and those who made the decision not to repurchase and/or replace the
Subject Vehicle and his or her supervisor.
Defendant’s
initial responses to discovery were unverified. Defendant did not secure an
extension to serve verified responses or to obtain verifications. As such, all
objections are waived, including ones based on privilege or on the protection
for work product. (C.C.P. §
2031.300(a).) Defendant has not served a
supplemental response that is in substantial compliance with its discovery
obligations and Defendant has not filed a motion for relief with the Court
under C.C.P. §2031.300(a).
Plaintiff’s
motion to compel further responses to SROG (Set One) is granted. Defendant is to produce the following answers:
1.
Defendant
shall identify all persons who performed warranty repairs upon the Subject
Vehicle. [SROG No. 14.]
2.
Defendant
shall identify all persons who inspected or tested the Subject Vehicle during
the relevant period. [SROG No. 20.]
3.
Defendant
shall identify the individual(s) whose responsibility it is to supervise to
ensure that Defendant properly determines whether a vehicle should be
repurchased or replaced pursuant to Song-Beverly. [SROG No. 39.]
4.
Defendant
shall identify all individuals responsible for Defendant’s decision whether or
not repurchase or replace the Subject Vehicle.
[SROG No. 43.]
5.
All
other requests for further production are DENIED.
6.
Defendant
shall provide supplemental responses in compliance with this order within 30
days.
C. Motion
to Compel Deposition
Meet
and Confer
Plaintiff’s
counsel declares that on January 18, 2023, he sent Defendant’s counsel a meet
and confer letter requesting an alternative deposition date by January 25,
2023, but Defendant’s counsel did not respond.
(Decl. of Mizrahi ¶6, Exh. C.)
Plaintiff’s counsel declares that on January 26, 2023, he called
Defendant’s counsel to obtain a new deposition date, but Defendant’s counsel
was unavailable, and later that day sent Defendant’s counsel another meet and confer
letter, to which Defendant’s counsel did not respond. (Decl. of Mizrahi ¶7, Exh. D.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares Defendant failed
to provide a deposition date for its PMK and ignored Plaintiff’s repeated
attempts to secure a date. (Decl. of
Mizrahi ¶8.) Plaintiff has demonstrated
a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve discovery issues outside of
court. (C.C.P. §§2016.040, 2025.450(b)(1).)
Background
On
January 9, 2023, Plaintiff served on Defendant a Notice of Deposition of
Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable with Request for Production of Documents,
with a deposition was set for January 25, 2023. The deposition notice identified twelve
categories for examination primarily related to the Subject Vehicle’s sale,
repair history, and Defendant’s policies and procedures. (Decl. of Mizrahi ¶4, Exh. A.) On January 18, 2023, Defendant served
boilerplate objections to Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition and affirmed that a
witness would not be produced on January 25, 2023. (Decl. of Mizrahi ¶5, Exh. B.) On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed the
instant motion. On March 30, 2023,
Defendant filed its opposition. On April
6, 2023, Plaintiff filed their reply.
Motion
to Compel
C.C.P. §2025.450(a) provides that,
“[i]f, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . .
without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear
for examination . . . , the party giving the notice may move for an order
compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony.”
C.C.P.
§2025.410(a), provides that, “[a]ny party served with a deposition notice that
does not comply with [the notice requirements in C.C.P. §§2025.210 through
2025.290] waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a
written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar
days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party
seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney or party on whom the
deposition notice was served.”
C.C.P.
§2025.450(b)(1) provides that, “[t]he motion [to compel deposition] shall set
forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for
inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible
thing described in the deposition notice.”
C.C.P.
§2025.450(b)(2) provides that, “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a meet and
confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to
attend the deposition . . . by a declaration stating that the petitioner has
contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”
Defendant
asserted various initial objections to the categories of testimony and requests
for production on the basis they were, but not limited to: (1) overbroad,
unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, irrelevant, and/or not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (2)
sought information that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and
the attorney work-product doctrine; and (3) demands production of trade secret
material. (See Opposition Separate
Statement.)
Plaintiff
is entitled to an order to compel deposition of Defendant’s PMK pursuant to
C.C.P. §§2024.020(a) and 2025.450. Plaintiff
duly noticed Defendant prior to the noticed date of deposition and made
multiple attempts to find alternative dates to reschedule, as to relevant
information only. (C.C.P. §205.280(a).) Plaintiff is not entitled to information that
is privileged. Plaintiff is entitled to
an order compelling respondent to produce its PMK in part. If there is a claim of attorney-client or
work product privilege, Defendant is ordered to produce a privilege log.
While
the ruling refers to the number of the discovery request or category of
testimony at issue, this reference does not indicate that the request or
category is granted in full; rather, the request is granted as limited by the
ruling. Similarly, the non-inclusion of
a reference to a request number does not indicate a denial of that request if
the ruling provides for production subject to the request. In addition to the items agreed to and
discussed above, the motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows:
1. Defendant
is ordered to provide its response pertaining to records and communications
about Subject Vehicle’s warranty claim, repairs, and service performed.
(Categories 1-2, 6-8, 10; Requests 1-4, 6, 9-11, 13);
2. Defendant
is ordered to provide its response regarding its pre-litigation repurchase
request (Category 5; Requests 4, 8);
3. Defendant
is ordered to provide its policies and procedures for lemon law and warranty
claim buybacks in California (Categories 4, 12, 12-24; Request 12);
4. Defendant
is ordered to provide its policies, procedures and guidelines regarding
responding to consumer complaints, recording calls, escalating calls in
California (Category 3; Request 16);
5. Defendant
is ordered to provide all TSBs which have been issued for vehicles of the same
year, make and model as the subject vehicle in the state of California, from
the date of purchase (Request 15).
6. All
other categories of testimony and requests for production are DENIED.
Based
on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition of Defendant’s PMK
and to produce documents is granted, in part.
Defendant’s PMK is to appear and
produce documents within 15 days, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
Dated: April 12, 2023
Hon. Daniel P. Ramirez
Judge of the Superior Court