Judge Robert B. Broadbelt, Case Number: 21STCV35444, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV35444, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with this motion.

The court did not consider the reply papers filed on November 15, 2024 because they were not filed and served at least 5 court days before the hearing on this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff Ulysses Noriega (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) to comply with the court’s January 5, 2024 order within five days, and (2) ordering prospective sanctions of $500 per day for each day thereafter that Defendant does not comply with the order compelling its compliance.

First, the court denies Plaintiff’s request for an order that Defendant comply with the court’s January 5, 2024 order.

Second, the court finds that (1) Plaintiff has shown that Defendant did not fully comply with the court’s January 5, 2024 order because Defendant (i) did not verify its supplemental responses as required, (ii) did not comply in full as to demand number 25 as ordered by the court,[1] (iii) did not produce responsive Information Service Bulletins and Technical Service Bulletins in response to demand number 16, and instead produced lists thereof only, and (iv) did not produce customer complaints in response to demand number 21 and instead identified documents relating to Technical Service Bulletins and recalls, which are not responsive to that demand, and (2) to address the harm suffered by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant’s noncompliance with the court’s order, it is appropriate to order that Defendant (i) serve verifications to its supplemental responses, and (ii) produce the documents described above. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250, subd. (a) [“The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections”]; Choderker Decl., Ex. 2, Def. Responses; Jan. 5, 2024 Order, pp. 2:25-3:2, 3:7-10.)

The court notes that Plaintiff has argued that Defendant’s responses are insufficient because they do not state that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with the demand. (Mot., pp. 7:15-20, 8:7-9.) But (1) such a statement is required only if the responding party has represented its inability to comply, and (2) Defendant has made statements of compliance in response to the subject demands. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.230 [“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand”] [emphasis added], 2031.220 [statement of compliance requirements]; Choderker Decl., Ex. 2, Def. Responses, pp. 2:20-24, 4:1-3, 5:5-13, 6:15-17, 8:1-10, 9:4-13, 10:8-10, 11:11-13, 12:12-15, 13:9-13, 14:5-9, 15:8-10, 16:2-4, 17:2-4.) Moreover, while Plaintiff argues that Defendant did not produce Failure Mode and Effects Documents relating to battery defects in response to demand number 25, Plaintiff did not cite evidence or present argument establishing that those documents exist and are in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. (Mot., p. 9:18-23.)

The court further notes that Plaintiff has argued that Defendant did not serve a further response to Request for Production of Documents, number 26. The court acknowledges that its January 5, 2024 order orders Defendant to serve a supplemental response to that demand. (Jan. 5, 2024 Order, p. 3:2.) This appears to be a typographical error because (1) Plaintiff did not move to compel a further response to this demand, and (2) the court did not, in the body of the order, grant Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to number 26. (Pl. Not. of Mot. to Compel Further Responses, p. 1:2-7; Jan. 5, 2024 Order, p. 2.) Instead, the order should have compelled Defendant’s further response to number 56. (Jan. 5, 2024 Order, p. 2:5-7 [granting motion as to numbers 7, 25, and 56].)

Third, the court denies Plaintiff’s request for prospective monetary sanctions.

The court grants in part plaintiff Ulyssess Noriega’s motion to compel compliance and for sanctions as follows.

The court orders defendant General Motors LLC (1) to serve on plaintiff Ulysses Noreiga verifications to defendant General Motors LLC’s supplemental responses to plaintiff Ulysses Noreiga’s Requests for Production of Documents, served on February 13, 2024, and (2) to produce to plaintiff Ulyssess Noreiga (i) all documents and things that are in defendant General Motors LLC’s possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to Requests for Production of Documents, number 25, (ii) all Information Service Bulletins and Technical Service that are in defendant General Motors LLC’s possession, custody, or control and that defendant General Motors LLC identified in response to Requests for Production of Documents, number 16, and (iii) customer complaints relating to defects alleged in the First Amended Complaint in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle, which are responsive to Requests for Production number 21 and are in defendant General Motors LLC’s possession, custody, or control, within 20 days of the date of this order.

The court denies plaintiff Ulyssess Noriega’s request for prospective monetary sanctions against defendant General Motors LLC.

The court orders that its January 5, 2024 order is modified (1) to remove the order that defendant General Motors LLC shall serve a further response to Requests for Production of Documents, number 26, and (2) to correct the order to state that defendant General Motors LLC shall serve a further response to Requests for Production of Documents, number 56.

[1] While Plaintiff has taken issue with Defendant’s representations of its compliance in part with demand numbers 16 and 21, the court notes that it did not order Defendant to comply in full with those demands. (Mot., p. 8:15-19; Jan. 5, 2024 Order, p. 3:2-7 [limiting numbers 16 and 21].)

ulysses noriega ; Plaintiff, vs. general motors llc , et al.; Defendants.	Case No.:	21STCV35444

	Hearing Date:	November 19, 2024

	Time:	10:00 a.m.

	[tentative] Order RE: plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with january 5, 2024 order and for sanctions