TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 5

Date: 3/15/2024

Case No: 23 GDCV00471 Trial Date: May 12, 2025 

Case Name: Vasquez v. General Motors, LLC 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO 

DOCUMENT DEMANDS

Moving Party: Plaintiff Cesar Vasquez   

Responding Party: Defendant General Motors, LLC (No Opposition)    

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Further Responses to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Cesar Vazquez alleges that in February of 2022 plaintiff entered into a warranty contract with defendant General Motors LLC regarding a 2020 Chevrolet Tahoe.  

Plaintiff alleges that nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period, which nonconformities substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the vehicle.  Plaintiff alleges that plaintiff delivered the vehicle to an authorized General Motors repair facility for repair of the nonconformities, but defendant was unable to conform the vehicle to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of repair attempts. 

The complaint alleges a cause of action for Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Express Warranty, and seeks damages, rescission of the purchase contract and restitution, and civil penalties. 

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff indicates in the moving paper that plaintiff recognizes this is a Song Beverly Action which is subject to the Standing Order Re Discovery (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.   An Order was originally signed by the court on January 24, 2023, and revised and again signed on January 11, 2024. 

Pursuant to the current version of the 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 provision concerning discovery in Song-Beverly matters which appear to address the discovery disputes raised by the current motion.  

“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)].

The parties are also directed to the Notice to All Counsel Re: Lemon Law Cases for Department D, entitled Customary Rulings Re Document Requests (Song Beverly Litigation) (Notice).  That Notice provides:

“When the court is faced with a discovery dispute in a Song-Beverly case, the court will usually order that the plaintiff and defendant provide copies of the following documents, which are in their respective possession, custody and/or control, to the opposing side: 

1. Defendant shall produce the “Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual” published by Defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the period of [date of purchase] to present. 

2. Defendant shall produce any internal analysis or investigation regarding defects alleged in plaintiff's complaint in vehicles for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. This includes Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins. Defendant is not required to do a search of emails. 

3. Defendant shall produce any customer complaints relating to defects alleged in plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. 

4. Defendant shall produce all documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for the period of [date of purchase] to present. 

5. Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

6. Communications with dealer, factory representative and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle.

7. Warranty claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the subject vehicle. 

8. Purchase and/or lease contract concerning the subject vehicle. 

9. Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle. 

10. Any documents supporting plaintiff’s claim for incidental and/or consequential damages.”

The parties are ordered to engage in good faith meet and confer concerning the outstanding discovery in light of the Order and Notice, and, if necessary, refile the motion and file new papers and an updated Code-compliant separate statement reflecting the then current status of the discovery dispute, including in that separate statement as to each request and response any applicable language of the Order and/or Notice. The motion is denied without prejudice.

The court will also expect full Code compliant responses, and unnecessary objections will be overruled.   

Specifically, with respect to a statement of compliance, 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.”

It does not appear from the file that the parties have yet entered into a protective order.  The court notes that if either party requires a protective order, the procedures are addressed in the Order, at section 2, subdivision (k), above.   The entry of such a protective order should make it unnecessary for the parties to assert any objections that the discovery seeks confidential, proprietary or trade secret information.  

RULING:

[No Opposition]

Plaintiff’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to the Standing Order Re Discovery (Song-Beverly Litigation), signed and entered by the Court on January 24, 2023 as revised, signed and entered on January 11, 2024. 

The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith concerning compliance with the Order, taking into consideration this Court’s Notice to All Counsel Re: Lemon Law Cases for Department D, Customary Rulings Re Document Requests (Song Beverly Litigation), and to serve any further discovery, and engage in any further discovery proceedings or motions in compliance with the Order and Notice, as well as with this minute order. 

If a party believes any of the information requested 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.

Any further objections that responsive documents are being withheld based on attorney-client or work product privilege must be accompanied by a Code- compliant privilege log. 

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

NOTE:

The Court notes that the court is in receipt of a very untimely opposition to the motion, which was filed on March 11, 2024, only four court days prior to the hearing, so five court days late. See CCP §1005(b) (“All papers opposing a motion…shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days… before the hearing.”) The opposition papers concede that the opposition is untimely. Defendant did not, however, seek an ex parte order permitting the filing of an untimely opposition, and there has been no order entered permitting the untimely filing.  The opposition was received several days after a Notice of Non-Opposition had been filed and served by plaintiff, and after the Court had already addressed the motion as unopposed.  The Court in its discretion has refused to consider the untimely opposition. See CRC Rule 3.1300(d). Defendant is cautioned that the Court requires compliance with the rules, statutes, and deadlines governing this litigation.  

 

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE 

AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances.  However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. 

If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.