TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 5

Date: 9/29/2023

Case No: 23 GDCV00086 Trial Date: December 30, 2024 

Case Name: Pairavi v. Allen Gwynn Chevrolet, Inc., et al. 

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 

(2 Motions)

Moving Party: Plaintiff Arvin Pairavi  

Responding Party: Defendant General Motors, LLC  

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One 

Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One 

MONETARY SANCTION:

None sought 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Arvin Pairavi alleges that in August of 2022 plaintiff purchased from defendant dealer Allen Gwynn Chevrolet, Inc. a new 2023 Chevrolet Corvette vehicle, which was sold to plaintiff with an express warranty from the vehicle manufacturer, defendant General Motors LLC.  Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle was also sold with a statutorily implied warranty of merchantability as described in the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  

Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle has a manufacturing defect which causes the brakes to squeal excessively, that plaintiff presented the vehicle to defendant dealer on three occasions, and dealer was either unable to perform any repair or the repair performed did not resolve the defect.  Plaintiff alleges that manufacturer and dealer have failed in their affirmative obligation to repurchase or replace the vehicle.  

The complaint alleges a cause of action for Violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. 

ANALYSIS:

The parties are evidently unaware that this matter is subject to the Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation) (Order) applicable to Song-Beverly Litigation, now posted and available on the Los Angeles Superior Court website in connection with this Department, Glendale Courthouse, Department D.   The Order was signed by the court on January 24, 2023. 

Pursuant to that Order, “any formal discovery propounded and currently pending or outstanding by a party in this matter prior to the date of this CMC Order is stayed pending further order of the Court.”

[Order section (1)(a)]. 

The order sets forth the following provisions concerning discovery in Song-Beverly matters which appear to address the discovery issues raised by the current motions. 

With respect to Interrogatories, the Order provides:

“Interrogatories:  Within the time limits allowed by law, both plaintiff and defendant may propound one set of Judicial Council Form Interrogatories and one set of maximum of 35 special interrogatories.  Any additional special interrogatories may only be propounded by stipulation and/or court order (via motion upon showing of good cause).”

[Order section (3)].

“Production of Documents:  Within 60 days of service of this Order both plaintiff and defendant shall provide copies of the following documents, which are in their respective possession, custody and/or control, to the opposing side(s):

a. Purchase or lease contracts concerning the subject vehicle, including any associated documents reflecting OEM or aftermarket equipment installed at the dealership, ELWs or service contracts, and any other writings signed by the plaintiff at the point of sale.

b. Work orders, repair orders, and invoices (including accounting and warranty versions) for any maintenance, service and repair activity concerning the subject vehicles.

c. Rental car or loaner agreements regarding alternative transportation provided during service or repair visits concerning the subject vehicle.

d. Records of communications with dealer personnel, and/or factory representatives and defendant’s call center or customer assistance personnel concerning the subject vehicle.

e. Warrant claims submitted to and/or approved by defendant concerning the subject vehicle.

f. Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual or similar policies or claim-handling procedures published by Defendant from the date the subject vehicle was purchased or leased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

g. Defendant’s written statements of policy and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase or replacement pursuant to “Lemon Law” 

claims, including ones brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date the subject vehicle was purchased or leased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

h. A list of or compilation of customer complaints in defendant’s electronically stored information database that are substantially similar to the alleged defects claimed by plaintiff, in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle.  A substantially similar customer complaint would be the same nature of reported symptom, malfunction, dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem as the description listed in any work order or repair order for the subject vehicle, other than routine or scheduled maintenance items.  The list provided by defendant may be in the chart or spreadsheet format, and shall include the VIN, date of repair visit, dealership or other reporting location, and text of the other customers’ reported complaint, but shall not include the other customers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or other personal identifying information.

i. Technical Service Bulletins and Recall Notices for vehicle purchased or leased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle.

j. Copies of any repair instruction, bulletin, or other diagnostic/repair procedure identified in any of the repair order/invoice records for the subject vehicle.

k. Receipts or other written evidence supporting any incidental or consequential damages claimed by plaintiff.

If a party believes any of this information should be subject to a protective order, that party shall serve and file a proposed protective order within 5 days of this Order and the parties shall meet and confer as to agreeable language for the same.  The default will be the standard Protective Order provided by the LASC in its website.

The information may be provided to the opposing party in electronic form as a PDF at the option of the producing party.

Plaintiff and defendant shall serve verification with the documents they produce.

Any additional requests for documents may only be propounded by stipulation and/or court order (via motion upon showing of good cause).

[Order section (2)(a)-(k)].

Specifically, with respect to a statement of compliance with document production requests, CCP section 2031.220 requires:

“A statement that a party to whom an inspection demand has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being make will be included in the production.”

With respect to a statement of inability to comply, CCP section 2031.230 requires:

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonably inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.   This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.   The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

The court notes that the file shows that the parties have entered into a Joint Stipulation and Protective Order, which was signed and entered as the order of this court on May 16, 2023, which should eliminate the need to assert certain objections. 

RULING:

Motion to Compel Responses by Defendant General Motors, LLC to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to this Court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation), signed and entered by the Court on January 24, 2023. 

Motion to Compel Responses by Defendant General Motors, LLC to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to this Court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation), signed and entered by the Court on January 24, 2023. 

The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith concerning compliance with the Order, and to serve any further discovery, and engage in any further discovery proceedings or motions in compliance with the Order and this Minute Order. 

 DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE