Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV00848, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00848, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00848 Hearing Date: February 28, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: February 28, 2024

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV00848

¿¿

CASE NAME: Gina Thomas and Ronald Williams v. General Motors, LLC, et al.

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Gina Thomas and Ronald Williams.

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, General Motors, LLC

TRIAL DATE: June 24, 2024

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One

(2) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One is CONTINUED to March 21, 2024. Parameters for meet and confer resolution by the parties in the interim, and an Amended Separate Statement, are discussed below

(2) Plaintiffs’ Requests for Sanctions is also CONTINUED to the same date

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

On March 29, 2023, Plaintiffs, Gina Thomas and Ronald Williams (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, General Motors, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10. The Complaint alleges two causes of action for: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty; and (2) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act § 1793.2.

Plaintiff’s motion asserts that on October 5, 2023, they propounded their first set of discovery requests, Requests for Production of Documents, on Defendant GM. Plaintiffs explain that the requests sought seek information regarding Plaintiffs’ vehicle, documents regarding how Defendant responds to requests for repurchase or replacement of a vehicle, documents explaining the various codes used in documents produced by Defendant, and documents explaining the various codes used in documents produced by Defendant, and documents showing similar warranty repairs and complaints from consumers of the same year, make, and model as the Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

Plaintiffs assert that to date, Defendant GM has failed to provide Code-compliant responses and documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests, including but not limited to RFP Nos., 16, 19-32, 27-41, and 45-46. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant GM served a litany of meritless objections, and stated that no documents would be produced. Further, Plaintiffs assert that on November 21, 2023, Plaintiffs signed and served Defendant’s Los Angeles Model Stipulated Protective Order. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has generally has provided additional documents subject to the protective order but this production consists of several hundred .pdf files identified by a Bates number, but without specifying which documents are responsive to which requests.

As such, Plaintiffs bring this motion to compel further responses seeking an order from this Court to compel Defendant to produce proper, Code compliant, verified further responses Plaintiffs’ RFPs, all documents, and award monetary sanctions.

B. Procedural¿¿

On December 15, 2023 Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. On February 9, 2024, Defendant GM filed an opposition. On February 21, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief.

¿ ¿¿

¿II. MEET AND CONFER

Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(b)(2) requires that a motion to compel a part deponent to appear or produce documents “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(2).) The attempt to resolve informally may be made either by conferring “in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney.” (C.C.P. §2023.010(i), [failure to make such attempt constitutes “misuse of discovery process”].)

Here, the Court notes the parties have sufficiently met and conferred in good faith.

III. ANALYSIS¿

A. Legal Standard

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFP”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) ¿

"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." (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.020(a).) Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of (a) the propounding party's subjective intent to create burden or (b) the amount of time and effort it would take to respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, no such evidence is necessary where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

B. Discussion

Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”) 16, 19 through 21, 37 through 41, and 45 through 46.

As with another discovery motion against GM on calendar for the same hearing date, this Court notes that the purpose of a Separate Statement in a discovery motion is to make it easier, not harder, for the Court to rule on Requests for Production categories. Regurgitating arguments, points, authorities, and citations from a moving or opposing brief in a separate statement, especially to the extent done by Plaintiffs, violates the page limitations of briefs supporting or opposing a motion. The Court notes that there are twenty-two (22) RFPs at issue in this motion, but Plaintiffs’ separate statement is 146 pages long. Further, the arguments made as to each of the requests are virtually identical. The Court urges the parties to take note of this as the Court is less inclined to rule on Motion to Compel Further with excessive separate statements and will send the issues back to the party to further meet and confer. The Court will continue the hearing but give the parties guidance on how it views the 6 discovery requests presented by this motion.

For purposes of enabling counsel to prepare for the continued hearing and supplemental Separate Statements, the Court sets forth below some basic parameters for what it typically orders with respect to certain of the discovery requests embraced by this motion. The Court typically orders and limits production of documents including ESI in a Song-Beverly single-vehicle case as follows:

1. Purchase and/or lease contract concerning the subject vehicle must be produced.

2. Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle must be produced, including the “accounting” copies showing the hours and dates of activity by dealer personnel.

3. Communications between the plaintiff and the warrantor/manufacturer and/or its servicing dealers, and communications between Plaintiff and the manufacturer’s factory representative and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle.

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

5. The applicable Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the year the lawsuit was filed or the year in which the buy-back demand was made. If a separate written policy, procedure, or manual exists regarding repurchases or buy backs appliable to vehicles sold or leased in California, that would also be required to be produced for the year the lawsuit was filed or the year Plaintiff contends the vehicle became qualified for repurchase (such as upon satisfaction of the Presentation Element of a Song-Beverly cause of action under Section 1793.2(d)(2) or 1793.22). Such documents would be produced subject to a protective order.

6. Any internal analysis and/or investigation regarding the primary or other recurring alleged defects claimed by plaintiff in her/his vehicle, applicable to the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. The Court tends to focus on the claimed symptom experienced by the plaintiff as described in the dealers’ repair records, rather than a broad and vague characterization of the claimed defect as described by counsel in the litigation. For example, if the customer experienced a black Infotainment screen when shifting in reverse, or a harsh engagement or clunk of the transmission when accelerating from 2^nd to 3^rd gear, or has had cellular phone calls dropped from time to time, or has the navigation function occasionally freeze when driving, those symptoms rather than an overly broad and nebulous characterization or definition of an “Infotainment Defect” would be the narrowing of scope of such internal analysis or investigation to be produced.

7. Other customers’ complaints similar to the alleged defects claimed by plaintiff, limited to vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. The other customer complaints again would be limited in scope to the description of the symptom as shown on the dealer repair records. The Court typically discusses with counsel the type of documents that may be required and the format for a production of documents such as in a sortable Excel spreadsheet that lists a compilation or summary of voluminous documents.

8. Technical Service Bulletins and/or Recall Notices for vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle, whether mentioned in the repair history of the subject vehicle or not.

As to some specific RFPs presented in this case, by way of initial examples, the Court give further guidance to the parties as follows:

RFP No. 16, 20, and 21. GRANTED in part. GM would be ordered to produce, subject to Protective Order, its Warranty Policy and Procedures Manual for California sold or leased motor vehicles for the one year in which Plaintiff made a demand or request for buy-back (or the year in which GM made its decision not to buyback Plaintiff’s model year 2015 Silverado.) If there are non-privileged documents in addition to those in the Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual that pertain specifically to the subject of buy-back requests or GM’s determination of entitlement to a buy-back independently of a customer demand or request, the Motion would be granted in part, but limited to such non-privileged policies, instructions or procedures for vehicles sold or leased in California and limited in time to the one year in which Plaintiff made his demand or request for a buy-back or in which GM made its decision in this case. Otherwise, the motion would be denied.

RFP No. 19. Denied. The RFP is overly broad and vague, since it references “complaints” which could include a customer’s reported warranty complaint to a GM dealer as to repair issues that were never presented in Plaintiff’s repair history. Work instructions, labor operations, measurement and testing guidelines and similar documents are embraced by the ambit of this request. If this RFP were limited to buy-back demands or customer dissatisfaction follow-up by a Call Center or similar arm of GM, that would be more reasonable, but the scope of the RFP is not so limited as phrased. The RFP should be re-phrased and made more focused as to what Plaintiff actually is seeking.

RFPs 45-46 – GRANTED only as to the agreed-upon discovery by Defendant GM pursuant to the protective order. It appears that despite signing the protective order, Defendant has still failed to provide further verified, supplemental written responses which identify which documents respond to which category of RFP, as well as providing the documents subject to the protective order. GM has agreed to supplement its document production to include other customer complaints within its ESI database that are substantially similar to Plaintiffs’ complaint(s) concerning the alleged defects, for vehicles purchased in California of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. The Court would find that this agreed-upon supplemental response/production should be sufficient in responding to Plaintiffs’ RFPs Nos. 45 through 46.

As to many other of the RFPs that are the subject of this motion, it appears that GM produced or agreed to produce responsive documents pursuant to the protective order but still has not served verified supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ RFPs that identify which documents are responsive to which requests, nor has it produced any of the confidential documents despite agreement on the Protective Order. As such, the Court would order Defendant GM to supplement its written responses to these requests by providing Code-compliant, verified responses which identify which documents respond to which request, as well as providing Plaintiff with the documents subject to the protective order, all by a specified date.

Accordingly, the Court continues the hearing on this motion to March 21, 2024. Plaintiff is ordered to submit an Amended Separate Statement by March 14, 2024, containing only the language of the discovery request and the language of the written response(s). The Amended Separate Statement shall not contain any legal argument, briefing, or reasons why the Court should compel a further response. The Court also orders counsel to meet and confer, in light of the parameters and examples noted in this Tentative Ruling, to see if the parties can agree on a narrowing of the definitions, geographic restriction, identification of Bates numbers responsive to which RFP category, and other aspects of the requested categories. If the parties agree to a narrowing of scope but issues remain to be resolved, then Plaintiff’s Amended Separate Statement shall contain a short, succinct statement of what narrowing has been agreed upon and what issue or issues remain for the Court to resolve. If GM so desires, it may but is not required to submit a Supplemental Statement on or before March 18, 2024 containing only the issues GM contends remain to be resolved at the March 21, 2024 hearing.

Unless waived, notice of this ruling shall be served by Plaintiffs.