Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 22PSCV00573 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV00573, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00573 Hearing Date: May 18, 2023 Dept: G

Plaintiff Jose Isabel Garcia’s Motion to Compel Defendant General Motors, LLC to Produce Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents

Respondent: Defendant General Motors, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Jose Isabel Garcia’s Motion to Compel Defendant General Motors, LLC to Produce Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED IN PART as to Request Nos. 12 and 33, and DENIED IN PART as to Request Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 25, 30, and 31.

Defendant General Motors, LLC is ordered to serve further and complete code-compliant responses without objection, except where otherwise allowed by this ruling, on Plaintiff within ten (10) days of the issuance of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action. On November 15, 2020, Plaintiff Jose Isabel Garcia entered into a warranty contract with Defendant General Motors, LLC by purchasing a 2021 Chevrolet Silverado 1500. Subsequently, Plaintiff alleges the vehicle contained or developed defects with its body system, emission system, engine, and transmission system.

On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1-50, alleging (1)¿violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); (4) breach of express written warranty; and (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

On March 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for May 18, with a final status conference on March 21, 2024, and a jury trial on April 2.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 11-15, 22, 23, 25, 28-31, and 33. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion as to Request Nos. 12 and 33, and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to Request Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, and 31.

Legal Standard

A party may file a motion compelling further production if it deems the responses are inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the responses is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.) The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).) To prevail, the moving party must first offer specific facts demonstrating “good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

The court must impose sanctions on a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make imposing a sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) However, “absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (j)(1).)

Discussion

On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff propounded written discovery requests on Defendant, including Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. (Cohen Decl., ¶ 5.) On October 4 and October 11, Defendant served written responses and verifications on Plaintiff. (Cohen Decl., ¶ 6.) On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel set a meet-and-confer letter to Defendant’s counsel that requested further responses to Plaintiff’s discovery request. (Cohen Decl., ¶ 8.) After exchanging meet-and-confer letters twice, Defendant declined to provide answers to the discovery requests at issue. (Cohen Decl., ¶ 9-12.) Accordingly, the court finds Plaintiff’s counsel made a good faith attempt to meet and confer and resolve the matter.

The Court addresses each request for production at issue as follows:

Request for Production No. 11

Plaintiff requests all documents with any internal analysis or investigation by Defendant involving engine defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s.

The court finds this request overbroad, vague, and not narrowly tailored. Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to this request. No further response is required by Defendant.

Request for Production No. 12

Plaintiff requests all documents involving any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins, and recalls concerning the alleged engine defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s. Although Defendant agreed to provide copies of all bulletins, the court finds Defendant’s production partially unresponsive as Plaintiff requested documents reflecting the decision to issue such bulletins. While Defendant also objects to this request on multiple grounds, the court finds Defendant’s objections without merit except for Defendant’s objections on attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.

Thus, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion as to this request, except to the extent any documents are alleged to be covered by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. If responsive documents are privileged or work-product, Defendant is ordered to provide a privilege log.

Request for Production No. 13

Plaintiff requests all documents constituting customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to the alleged engine defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s.

The court finds this request is overbroad, vague, and not narrowly tailored. Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to this request. No further response is required by Defendant.

Request for Production No. 14

Plaintiff requests all documents concerning failure rates of vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s as a result of the alleged engine defect.

The court finds this request is overbroad, vague, and not narrowly tailored. Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to this request. No further response is required by Defendant.

Request for Production No. 15

Plaintiff requests all documents concerning any fixes for the alleged engine defect in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s.

The court finds this request is overbroad, vague, and not narrowly tailored. Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to this request. No further response is required by Defendant.

Request for Production No. 22

Plaintiff requests all documents reflecting Defendant’s policies, procedures, or practices for evaluating consumer requests pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act since 2018.

Because this request is not limited to the alleged defects at issue in this action, the court finds this request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to this request.

Request for Production No. 23

Plaintiff requests all documents reflecting Defendant’s policies, procedures, or practices for handling consumer complaints regarding vehicles manufactured or distributed by Defendant.

Request for Production No. 25

Plaintiff requests all training manuals and other training documents for Defendant’s employees, agents, and representatives in connection with handling lemon law repurchase requests.

The court finds this request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to this request.

Request for Production No. 28

Plaintiff requests all documents regarding any communication between Defendant and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the alleged engine defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s.

The court finds this request is overbroad, vague, and not narrowly tailored. Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to this request. No further response is required by Defendant.

Request for Production No. 29

Plaintiff requests all NHTSA complaints in Defendant’s possession that involve alleged engine defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s.

The court finds this request is overbroad, vague, and not narrowly tailored. Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to this request. No further response is required by Defendant.

Request for Production No. 30

Plaintiff requests all early warning reports submitted to NHTSA concerning vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The court finds this request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to this request.

Request for Production No. 31

Plaintiff requests all TREAD reports Defendant submitted concerning vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The court finds this request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to this request.

Request for Production No. 33

Plaintiff requests all vehicle warranty history reports for vehicles repurchased or replaced by Defendant due to nonconformities substantially similar to the engine defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s vehicle. While Defendant objects to this request on multiple grounds, the court finds Defendant’s objections are without merit and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion as to this request.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Requests for Production is GRANTED IN PART as to Request Nos. 12 and 33, and DENIED IN PART as to Request Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, and 31.

Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to serve further and complete code-compliant responses without objection, except where otherwise allowed by this ruling, on Plaintiff within ten (10) days of the issuance of this order.