Judge Richard S. Whitney, Case 37-2023-00005545-CU-BC-CTL 2023-12-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2023-00005545-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-12-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 28, 2023

12/29/2023 10:30:00 AM C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00005545-CU-BC-CTL RODRIGUEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR MONETRARY SANCTIONS is GRANTED, in part.

General Motors LLC ('Defendant') first argues Plaintiffs DAGOBERTO RODRIGUEZ and VANESSA RODRIGUEZ's ('Plaintiffs') meet and confer efforts were insufficient. The Court finds the meet and confer efforts were sufficient under the circumstances. (See Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) Except as to claims of privilege or attorney work product, Plaintiffs have the burden to show good cause by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Once good cause is shown, the burden shifts to Defendant to justify her objections. (Id.) The Court finds, as discussed further below, Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated good cause because the requests, even those related to other vehicles, seek information that 'might reasonably assist [Plaintiffs] in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.' (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546. The requests that pertain to other vehicles are sufficiently particularized as they relate to the same make, model, and year as the Plaintiffs' vehicle.

As to Request Nos. 1-3 and 8-9, Defendant must produce all documents regarding the Plaintiffs' vehicle that are within Defendant's 'possession, custody, or control.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) Similar defects in other vehicles of the same make, model, and year could tend to prove Defendant was aware of the alleged defects in the vehicle but refused to repurchase the vehicle, notwithstanding its knowledge that it could not repair the vehicle. Both Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967 and Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138 impliedly recognize that information regarding other vehicles of the same make and model or with the same vehicle component with the same defect are relevant and use of same is not prejudicial.

The court in Doppes held terminating sanctions should have been awarded by the trial court where the defendant abused the discovery process by, inter alia, failing to produce, for a person-most-knowledgeable deposition, 'customer complaints concerning the rust inhibitor used on the 2002 Bentley Arnage.' (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at 972 and 993.) This request applied to a component in all vehicles of a certain make and model. For there to have been a discovery abuse as to such request, the information must have been discoverable. In Donlen the court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a manufacturer's motion in limine to 'exclude evidence of other Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3002060 42 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: RODRIGUEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00005545-CU-BC-CTL vehicles and of the nonwarranty repair.' (Donlen, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at 154.) The court found testimony from an expert regarding issues in transmissions in other F–450 truck was not prejudicial. (Id.) The more recent case Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334 supports the conclusion documents pertaining to other vehicles with similar defects is discoverable as the court found internal emails between engineers about an attempted fix for a defect in similar vehicles (not just the plaintiff's vehicle) supported the jury verdict. (Id. at 347.) Evidence of similar issues in other vehicles of the same make, model, and year could tend to show, at a minimum, Defendant likely had knowledge of the issues. Defendant has 'an affirmative duty to replace a vehicle or make restitution' if it is 'unable to repair the new vehicle after a reasonable number of repair attempts.' (Lukather v. General Motors, LLC (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1050.) A manufacturer's failure to comply with is statutory duty potentially subjects it to civil penalties. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd.

(c).) If Defendant's failure to 'replace or refund was the result of a good faith and reasonable belief the facts imposing the statutory obligation were not present,' then it is not considered a willful violation and it is not liable for civil penalties. (Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 185.) Evidence of other vehicles of the same make, model, and year having the exact same defect is relevant to show Defendant's awareness of the prevalence of such defect and its reasonableness in refusing to repurchase the vehicle considering such awareness. The above analysis also applies to recalls, technical service bulletins, and the like. While the circumstances as to each repurchase decision may be different, this does not render the information irrelevant because a trier of fact may find that Defendant should have considered information as to other vehicles.

Corporate policies and procedures of manufacturers related to handling of defects are relevant for purposes of determining whether the manufacturer complied with the Song–Beverly Act and/or whether the failure to comply was willful, which could result in civil penalties (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1104–1105; Kwan, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at 185; see also Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191.) The Court has discretion to weigh the burden of compliance (such as cost, time, expense and disruption of normal business) against the likelihood of producing helpful information to avoid duplicative production and to narrow demands. (Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1497.) 'The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020(a).) Further, the Court 'shall limit the frequency or extent of discovery of electronically stored information, even from a source that is reasonably accessible' if the 'likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit, taking into account the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues in the litigation, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060(f).) Defendant has the burden to show its objections are justified. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(d).) 'An 'objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.'' (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549 [Citation omitted].) Defendant has not demonstrated the quantum of work involved to produce responsive documents to demonstrate the burden is undue.

The Court is cognizant of the burden lemon law cases are placing on California courts. The Court is aware that the cost of litigating a lemon law case can and often does exceed the total recovery a plaintiff could hope for, excluding attorney's fees. Thus, the Court would only require some showing of burden that is undue, in light of the amount in controversy, to conclude that the discovery should be denied.

Defendant should have provided a declaration or other evidence to support a quantification of the burden that would be involved in responding to the requests.

As to the trade secret objection, Defendant cites to a declaration of Huizhen Lu which is dated in October of 2018. This action was filed long after the declaration was signed. The Court finds that the declaration cannot support the objection in this action. The Court cannot determine the validity of trade secret claims in the absence of a supporting declaration that relates to this case. Further, Defendant has Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3002060 42 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: RODRIGUEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00005545-CU-BC-CTL the burden to file a motion for protective order as to trade secrets. (See Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 318.) Defendant could have moved for a protective order, but Defendant has not done so. It is unclear to the Court why this argument is asserted given that the parties have apparently agreed to a stipulated protective order (the representations as to a stipulated protective order are inconsistent).

Defendant has failed to support its objections. The motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant, Set One Nos 1-3, 7-9, 12, 17, 19, 22, 24, 30, 35, 38, 40, 41, 48, 53, 55, 56, 65, and 73-76 and to produce documents within fifteen (15) calendar days. No sanctions are awarded.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3002060 42