Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22PSCV00775, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00775    Hearing Date: August 15, 2023    Dept: K

Plaintiff George Villarreal’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED [see below].

Background   

Plaintiff George Villarreal (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On October 22, 2020, Plaintiff purchased a 2020 Chevrolet Silverado, VIN No. 3GCPYFED3LG446908 (“subject vehicle”). The subject vehicle is equipped with a Hydra-Matic 8LPO transmission or Hydra-Matic 8L45 transmission which has a design defect causing “harsh shifts” in lower gears (“Transmission Defect”). General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) knew or should have known about the Transmission Defect before the subject vehicle was sold to Plaintiff.

On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for:

1.                  Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Express Warranty

2.                  Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Implied Warranty

3.                  Violation of Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2

4.                  Fraud—Fraudulent Inducement—Concealment

The Final Status Conference is set for July 30, 2024. Trial is set for August 13, 2024.

Legal Standard

“[T]he demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that. . . (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[,] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive [and/or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) “In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(3).)

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) If the moving party has shown good cause for the production of documents, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4^th 92, 98.) 

Notice of the motion must be provided “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.310, subd. (c).)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction. . . 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.310 and 2031.320, for an order striking Defendant’s objections and compelling Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One (i.e., Nos. 1-4, 6, 7 and 9-64).

Plaintiff’s counsel Gregory Sogoyan (“Sogoyan”) represents as follows:

On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff propounded the subject discovery on Defendant. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 26, Exh. 8.) On March 16, 2023, Defendant provided responses thereto. (Id., ¶¶ 27, Exh. 9.) On April 12, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel Kevin Jacobson (“Jacobson”) sent a meet and confer letter, requesting therein that further responses be provided no later than April 18, 2023. (Id., ¶¶ 29-34, Exh. 10.)

This motion followed on April 25, 2023.

Plaintiff represents that Nos. 1-4 pertains to his own vehicle, that Nos. 6, 7 and 49-54 pertain to Defendant’s warranty and repurchase policies, procedures and practices, and that Nos. 9-48 and 55-64 pertain to Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle. The court addresses these categories as follows:

Plaintiffs’ Vehicle (i.e., Nos. 1-4)

Request No. 1 seeks all documents regarding the subject vehicle that are within Defendant’s Customer Relations Center.

Request No. 2 seeks all documents regarding any service, warranty, and other documents that relate to the alleged defect in the subject vehicle Defendant issued to any dealer, regional or zone offices, fleet purchasers, or other entities.

Request No. 3 seeks Defendant’s recall policy and procedure.

Request No. 4 seeks all documents between Defendant and/or Defendant’s call center representative(s) and Defendant’s authorized dealers regarding the subject vehicle.

Defendant asserts that it has already produced documents in response to Nos. 1 and 4. Defendant’s “comply in part” responses thereto, however, reflect non-compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.210 and 2031.220. Further responses are warranted.

The court will address Request No. 2 below (i.e., Prior Knowledge Discovery).

Defendant refused to produce any documents in response to Request No. 3, on the basis that the request was overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, sought confidential, proprietary and trade secret information and sought information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. The court agrees that the request is overbroad as to time.

Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle on October 22, 2020 (Complaint, ¶ 3). Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant “began marketing the release of a new, eight-speed automatic transmission to be included in some of its vehicles for model year 2015” in January 2014. (Id., ¶ 19). The request, then, is limited in time from January 2014 to July 26, 2022 (i.e., the date Plaintiff’ filed his complaint). The court also agrees that the request is overbroad as to scope, inasmuch as it is not limited to the defects and vehicle type at issue for California consumers. The Song-Beverly Act and its lemon law provisions limits its application to goods sold in California and has certain provisions that afford protections greater than the requirements of the federal Magnuson Moss Act. (See Civil Code §§ 1792, 1792.1; Atkinson v. Elk Corp of Texas (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 212, 231.) As the statute’s application to lemon law is for vehicles “sold in this state” such phrase is interpreted to restricting the scope to goods sold in California. (California State Electronic Ass’n v. Zeos Int’l Ltd. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1277.)  The court determines that such a limitation is warranted.

Defendant claims that the requests are overly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of this matter. However, “[t]he objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.” (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) Defendant has not provided any such evidence. At any rate, the court determines that Defendant’s concerns of overbreadth and undue burden have been sufficiently addressed via the limitations imposed above.

Next, Defendant’s policies are relevant to a determination of Defendant’s good faith. (See e.g. Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1105 (finding car manufacturer’s internal policy relevant to whether it evidenced an “unreasonable and not a good faith effort to honor its statutory obligations to repurchase defective cars.”).)  The documents are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding whether Defendant knew of the defects at issue yet failed to repurchase the subject vehicle. In Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143, the appellate 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.  (Id. at 154.)  Donlen thus provides a basis for permitting discovery to extend beyond Plaintiff’s specific vehicle.  A defendant’s knowledge of the defect is relevant to whether Defendant willfully violated the statute.  (Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 136; 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.”].)

Defendant claims that documents Plaintiffs are seeking are confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive trade secrets. Objections based on confidentiality are not proper grounds for withholding responsive information. (See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23 [“We know of no case holding that this is a proper ground for objection to an otherwise proper interrogatory. Assuming that the information called for by this interrogatory is of a confidential nature which defendants do not want to have included in a public record, they presumably could have applied for a protective order. . .”].) Defendant did not seek a protective order. The court believes that any confidentiality concerns may be adequately safeguarded upon the parties’ entry into a protective order.

Finally, although Defendant interposed an objection on the basis of the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine, Defendant has not met its burden of justifying this objection. Any documents withheld from production on this basis must be accompanied by a privilege log.

A further response to Request No. 3 is warranted, subject to the limitations identified above.

Evaluation Discovery (i.e., Nos. 6, 7 and 49-54)

Request No. 6 seeks documents reflecting Defendant’s rules, policies, or procedures since 2011 regarding the issuance of refunds to buyers or providing replacement vehicles to buyers in California under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. No. 50 seeks this same information, except since 2010.

Request No. 7 seeks documents Defendant has used, since 2011, to evaluate consumers’ requests for repurchases pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Request No. 49 seeks the Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by Defendant and provided to Defendant’s authorized repair facility(s), within the state of California, from 2011-present. 

No. 51 seeks Defendant’s policies, procedures, and/or instructions since 2010 that Defendant’s employees and agents should follow when evaluating a customer request for their money back or a replacement of a motor vehicle manufactured or distributed by Defendant.

No. 52 seeks Defendant’s policies, procedures or guidelines for determining whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase.

No. 53 seeks Defendant’s training material related to Defendant’s policy to encourage customers to give Defendant another opportunity to repair their vehicles.

No. 54 seeks Defendant’s policy defining what constitutes a repair for repurchase or replacement in California.

Defendant refused to produce any documents in response to Requests Nos. 6, 7 and 49-54 on the basis that the requests were overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, sought confidential, proprietary and trade secret information and sought information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.

The court agrees that the requests are overbroad as to time and scope and limits the requests in time from January 2014 to July 26, 2022 and in scope to the defects and vehicle type at issue for California consumers. The court otherwise rejects Defendant’s objections, for the reasons set forth above. Further responses to Request Nos. 6, 7 and 49-54 are warranted, subject to the limitations set forth herein.

Prior Knowledge Discovery (i.e., Nos. 9-48 and 55-64)

Request No. 9 seeks field technical reports from Defendant’s agents, representatives, or employees to Defendant which provide Defendant with information relating to warranty parts replacement trends relating to the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS[1] in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES[2] equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Requests Nos. 10, 12, 24, 60 and 61 seek documents concerning any internal analysis or investigation regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Requests Nos. 11 and 26 seek documents concerning any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins, and recalls concerning the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 13 seeks field technical reports which provide Defendant with information relating to common part failures relating to the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 14 seeks customer complaints, claims, reported failures and warranty claims related to the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 15 seeks Failure Mode and Effects Analysis reports (or comparable root cause analyses) concerning the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 16 seeks National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) complaints concerning the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 17 seeks Early Warning Reports (“EWR”) complaints regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 18 seeks Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (“TREAD”) complaints regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRAMATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 19 seeks customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 20 seeks documents sent, received, prepared, and/or reviewed by Defendant’s Field Review Committee or its equivalent, regarding any investigation, reports, surveys, countermeasure, or failures, regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 21 seeks documents within Defendant’s customer satisfaction surveys, or the equivalent, regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 22 seeks documents concerning field technical reports from Defendant’s agents, representatives, or employees to Defendant which provide Defendant with information relating to suggested repair procedures for commonly observed problems relating to TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 23 seeks documents concerning field technical reports from Defendant’s agents, representatives, or employees to Defendant which provide Defendant with information relating to repeat repair failures relating to TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 25 seeks documents concerning any customer concerns YOU have relating [sic] TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 27 seeks documents concerning any decision to modify any component parts in response to the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 28 seeks documents concerning any fixes in response to the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Requests Nos. 29 and 31 seek documents concerning any internal investigation and analysis by Defendant regarding TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 30 seeks electronic mail which relates to TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Requests Nos. 32-40 seek documents concerning TSB PIP5200A[/TSB 14-07-30-001/TSB 14-07-30-001A/ TSB 14-07-30-001G/TSB 14-07-30-001B/TSB 14-07-30-001C/TSB 14-07-30-001E/TSB 14-07-30-001F/TSB 15-NA-007, respectively].

Request No. 41 seeks documents concerning communications Defendant had with any third parties regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle. No. 42 is identical, save for the use of the word “transmission” instead of TRANSMISSION DEFECTS.

Request No. 43 seeks documents concerning communications Defendant had with the Center for Auto Safety regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 44 seeks documents concerning communications Defendant had with the NHTSA regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 45 seeks all documents concerning consumer complaints made directly to Defendant regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 46 appears to be duplicative of Request No. 2, above.

Request No. 47 seeks documents that exist within Defendant’s customer questionnaire survey database regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 48 seeks all manuals provided to consumers in connection with their purchase or lease of HYDRAMATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 55 seeks documents concerning any communication Defendant has had regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 56 seeks documents concerning any modifications Defendant has made regarding the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 57 seeks documents regarding the failure rates of the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Requests Nos. 58 and 59 seek documents regarding any available repairs for the TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 62 seeks documents concerning all HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES repurchased or replaced by YOU that are equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 63 seeks documents concerning executive summaries relating to TRANSMISSION DEFECTS in HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Request No. 64 seeks documents concerning Defendant’s advertising regarding HYDRA-MATIC VEHICLES equipped with the same Transmission as the subject vehicle.

Defendant asserts that it has already produced documents in response to Nos. 11, 46, 48 and 64. Defendant’s “comply in part” responses thereto, however, reflect non-compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.210 and 2031.220. Further responses are warranted, subject to the limitations set forth herein.

Defendant refused to produce any documents in response to Requests Nos. 2, 9, 10, 12-45, 47 and 55-63 on the basis that the requests were overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, sought confidential, proprietary and trade secret information and sought information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.

The court agrees that the requests are overbroad as to time and scope and limits the requests in time from January 2014 to July 26, 2022 and in scope to the defects and vehicle type at issue for California consumers. The court otherwise rejects Defendant’s objections, for the reasons set forth above. Further responses to Request Nos. 2, 9, 10, 12-45, 47 and 55-63 are warranted, subject to the limitations set forth above.