Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 22STCV12345, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12345    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted in part and denied in part. Code-compliant production is to be completed within 15 days.

          Plaintiff Daniel Villegas Sandoval (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).  (Notice of Motion pg. 1.) 

The Court declines to rule on Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections, filed on February 23, 2023, to the Declaration of Arash Yaraghchian. The Court did not rely on any of the statements objected to in ruling on this motion.  

By way of background, on October 31, 2020, Plaintiff purchased a 2020 Chevrolet Silverado (“subject vehicle”).  Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle was delivered to them with serious defects and nonconformities to the warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to the warranty including, but not limited to, issues with the transmission and related systems, vehicle shaking, vehicle vibration, check engine light flashing, cylinder misfire, loss of vehicle power, lifters, and others.  (Complaint ¶ 8.) 

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests Nos. 5 (the deal jacket),7 (repair orders for subject vehicle), 15 (documents containing diagnostic trouble codes for subject vehicle), 16 (TSBs for same year make and model) and 17 (recalls for same year, make and model as subject vehicle).

The Court would note that it conducted an IDC on July 29, 2022 and Defendant made certain agreements to provide supplemental responses to these responses, as well as others.

Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.  While the Court’s ruling makes reference to the number of the discovery request at issue, this reference does not indicate that the request is granted in full; rather, the request is granted to the extent the set forth in 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.  The motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 

1.          Defendant shall produce the entire sales/lease file commonly referred to as the deal jacket for Plaintiff’s acquisition of the subject vehicle. (See No. 5.)

2.            Defendant shall produce all repair orders pertaining to the subject vehicle from the date of manufacture to present for maintenance or repairs performed by GM authorized dealers and/or repair facilities. (See No. 7.)

3.            Defendant shall produce Technical Service Bulletins, Recall Notices, and warranty extensions for vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle.  (See No. 16.)

4.             Defendant shall produce documents evidencing recalls made by Defendant of vehicles of the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle, for the period of October 31, 2020 to present, for defects that affect transmission and related systems, or cause vehicle shaking, vehicle vibration, check engine light flashing, cylinder misfire, loss of vehicle power, and lifter defects claimed by Plaintiff, for vehicles in California (Complaint ¶ 8).  (See No. 17.)

5.            All other requests for further production, including No. 15, are DENIED.

Defendant shall provide supplemental responses in compliance with this order within 15 days.  

Dated:  February_____, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court