Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV00948, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00948, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00948 Hearing Date: March 21, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: March 21, 2024

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV00948

¿¿

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 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as explained below. A verified further written response and production of documents is ordered to be provided by April 12, 2024.

(2) Denied

¿¿

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.

On October 5, 2023, Plaintiffs note that 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 series of objections, and stated that no documents would be produced. Further, Plaintiffs note that on November 21, 2023, Plaintiffs signed and served Defendant’s Los Angeles Model Stipulated Protective Order. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has generally provided additional documents subject to the protective order but this production consists of several hundred .pdf files identified as before only by a bates number, but Plaintiffs contend it has not done so here. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant does not serve verified supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ RFPs that identify 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.

On February 28, 2024, this Court originally heard this motion, and continued the motion, ordering Plaintiff to submit an amended separate statement by March 14, 2024, containing only the language of the discovery requests, responses, and supplemental responses if any. Further, this Court ordered the parties to further meet and confer, in light of the parameters and examples noted in its March 14, 2024 tentative ruling, to see if the parties could 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.

On March 14, 2024, Plaintiffs did file their Amended Separate Statement.

DISCUSSION

¿ ¿¿

Pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Amended Separate Statement, Plaintiffs contend that the following issues remain: (1) With regard to RFPs 16 and 19-32, Defendant stated in its RFP responses that no documents would be produced in response to these RFPs, but in response to Plaintiffs’ initial meet and confer letter Defendant completely reversed its position and stated that it would produce such documents subject to a protective order. Plaintiffs signed Defendant’s protective order on November 21, 2024 but Defendant has not subsequently produced any documents. The Court will entertain a discussion from GM’s counsel at the hearing as to why no responsive documents have been produced or if they have been.

Plaintiffs request that the Court order Defendant to order Defendant to serve verified supplemental responses that identify which documents are responsive to which requests, as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280(a), and to address RFPs 37-41 which per Plaintiffs remain in dispute. Plaintiffs have withdrawn the motion with respect to RFPs 45-46.

RFP Nos. 37-41 – GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. These requests seek documents with respect to cars of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle. Specifically, RFP No. 37 seeks all OBDII codes for the same year, make, and model, but without any indication as to whether the Plaintiffs’ repair complaints do or don not report symptoms fo each and every one of the scores of OBD diagnostic codes. RFP No. 38 seeks all vehicle symptom codes for the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle, but again not limited to specific repair complaints reported by Plaintiffs in the vehicle’s repair history. RFP No. 39 seeks all of GM’s vehicle repair codes for the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle; RFP No. 40 seeks documents sufficient to show all of GM’s customer complaint codes from 2016 to present; and RFP No. 41 seeks documents sufficient to show all labor operation codes provided by GM to their authorized dealerships from 2016 to present. In Plaintiffs’ moving papers, Plaintiff explains that these codes would explain the various codes used in a shorthand in the repair orders and other internal documents produced by Defendant. Plaintiffs have argued that understanding what these codes mean is necessary to understanding the document in which they are used. Plaintiffs have also noted that the typical production in responses to these, but once again not limited to repair codes for specific symptoms or complaints that Plaintiff reported or that a GM dealer included in the repair history for this vehicle

As for RFP Nos. 16, 19-32, Defendant has indicated to this Court, on numerous occasions, that it has already agreed to produce the documents and responses as to each of these requests. At oral argument, the Court will hear from GM as to WHEN the documents were or will be provided. The Court is inclined to order GM to produce the documents as to these requests pursuant to the protective order, relating to labor operations, OBD II codes, and related categories in the RFP bearing on actual symptoms or complains reported by Plaintiffs in the vehicle’s repair history, but not for Codes that are not for Plaintiff’s repair complaints. Further, the Court is inclined to order GM to identify in its verified further written responses the RFP category corresponding to the documents that are responsive to the request. For example, in the further written response to RFP 39, GM is to state that the attached Bates numbers 1217 to 1230 are the documents responsive to RFP 39. The further written response would be due by April 12, 2024.