Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV01908, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV01908, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV01908 Hearing Date: November 7, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: November 7, 2024

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV01908

¿¿

CASE NAME: Richard Wayne Drake III v. General Motors, LLC, et al.

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Richard Wayne Drake III

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, General Motors, LLC

TRIAL DATE: Not set.

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel General Motor’s Compliance with the Court’s June 25, 2024 Discovery Order

(2) Request for Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULINGS: (1) Motion to Compel General Motor’s Compliance with the Court’s June 25, 2024 Discovery Order is CONTINUED. Neither the Lee nor the Pappas declaration give the Court sufficient detail as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that less than all required Steering Defect documents were produced, and the Pappas declaration does not list Bates numbers nor attach the documents that were produced nor provide a factual basis (such as a declaration from a GM employee that attaches a list of all TSBs and ISBs for the subject vehicle that mention the word “steering”) for the Court to ascertain that the documents produced are comprehensive. Under AB 1755, commencing April 1, 2025 GM will be required to produce TSBs and ISBs for every new Lemon Law case seeking civil penalties in California within 60 days, not within the year that Plaintiff claims it has taken so far, under new CCP section 871.26(h)(9) and (10) and produce a PMK for a 2-hour deposition on categories including TSBs and ISBs applicable to the Plaintiff’s repair complaints per new CCP section 871.26(i)

(2) Request for Sanctions is CONTINUED.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

On June 13 2023, Plaintiff, Richard Wayne Drake III (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, General Motors, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(d); (2) Violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(b); (3) Violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(a)(3); (4) Breach of Express – Civil Code § 1791.2(a); § 1794; and (5) Breach of The Implied Warranty of Merchantability – Civil Code § 1791.1, § 1794.

On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. On November 17, 2023, Defendant electronically served its unverified responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and which Plaintiff has argued did not come with code-compliant document production. Plaintiff’s motion stated that no documents, including those related to internal investigations and analysis of the alleged steering defect were ever produced.

On January 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses. On April 11, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition brief. On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief. The motion was originally heard on April 23, 2024, where this Court continued the motion and requested a status report to be submitted for the Court’s review by June 18, 2024. No such status report was provided by Defendant. On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff’s status report reported that between the IDC and filing Plaintiff’s status report Defendant had failed to provide any document production that was discussed with the Corut at the IDC.

On June 25, 2024, this Court ordered GM to produce technical documents related to symptoms described in Plaintiff’s defect definition, which was stipulated during the April 23, 2024 IDC. However, Plaintiff argues GM has yet to provide the requisite responses and documents, which allegedly constitutes a violation of the court’s order. Thus, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling GM to produce documents pursuant to the Court’s June 25, 2024 discovery order and that monetary sanctions be imposed against GM in the amount of $500 for each day GM does not produce the responsive documents after a ten-day compliance period.

B. Procedural¿¿

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s June 25, 2024 Discovery Order. On October 25, 2024, GM filed an opposition brief. To date, no reply brief has been filed.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿

A. Legal Analysis

A party to whom an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling demand has been directed may respond with an indication that the party will comply with the particular demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a)(1).) Thereafter, if the responding party fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).)

B. Discussion

i. Meet and Confer Efforts

GM asserts that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith prior to bringing this motion. GM relies on motion to compel statutes generally. However, this Court notes that the prior meet and confer requirements being met, the IDC that took place, and the numerous discussions at the continued hearings, indicate that the parties have sufficiently met and conferred regarding this discovery.

ii. Motion to Compel Compliance

Plaintiff argues GM has failed to produce all technical documents related to symptoms described in Plaintiff’s defect definition and related documents in publication of those technical documents. Per Plaintiff, GM’s supplemental responses did not include what had been stipulated during the IDC and had been conferred with this court on June 25, 2024. However, in opposition, GM states it complied with this Court’s order when it produced supplemental responses on August 19, 2024 when it referred Plaintiff to responsive documents already produced: lists of TSBs and ISBs and Recalls/Bulletins applicable to the same year/make/model vehicle as Plaintiff’s Sierra, and produced recalls not already produced. GM has not provided the Court with a list by Bates-number the documents it produced as to which of the RFP categories that remain at issue. At oral argument on November 7, the Court expects counsel to be prepared to discuss what has and has not been produced as to which categories of the RFPs that remain at issue. The Court does not expect to be required to go through page by page each document produced to determine compliance with its prior discovery order, but if that is what is required then the Court may need to order the person who verified the responses to attend a future hearing, in person, to walk the Court through what was produced and what else remains and has not been produced as to each category of the RFPs in dispute.

As this court is unable to determine from the moving papers or opposition papers, what is exactly remains at issue in this Motion to Compel Compliance.

This hearing on this motion may need to be CONTINUED depending on the outcome of oral argument.