Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV44540, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44540    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Hadi Sabbaghzadeh’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted.

Plaintiff Hadi Sabbaghzadeh’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is granted.

          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 and 7.  (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, and 43.  (Notice of Motion SROG pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §2030.300.)

Plaintiff alleges on or about September 4, 2017, Plaintiff purchased a new 2017 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray (“Subject Vehicle”).  (Complaint ¶7.)  Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle was delivered to them with serious defects and nonconformities to the warranty including, but not limited to the engine and related systems, grinding noise, driveshaft support making noise, driveline support assembly, vehicle having raw gas smell, check engine light flashing, misfires, vehicle rattling, vehicle knocking under shifter, vehicle shaking, and others.  (Complaint ¶8.)  Plaintiff filed their operative Complaint on December 7, 2021, alleging three causes of action against Defendant under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly”), (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, and (3) violation of Song-Beverly.  (See Complaint.)

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiffs’ 4/10/23 evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Arash Yaraghchian (“Yaraghchian”) are sustained as to Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.  

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.  On April 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their replies.

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. 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.  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.     All other requests for further production are DENIED as moot.

4.     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 of 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. 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 all individuals responsible for Defendant’s decision whether or not repurchase or replace the Subject Vehicle.  [SROG No. 43.]

4.     All other requests for further responses are DENIED as moot.

5.     Defendant shall provide supplemental responses in compliance with this order within 30 days.  

Dated:  April _____, 2023

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court