Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01395, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01395    Hearing Date: June 29, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Ernesto Molina-Molina’s Motion to Compel Further Responses and Documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One

Respondent: Defendant General Motors, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Ernesto Molina-Molina’s Motion to Compel Further Responses and Documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED IN PART as to Request No. 18 and DENIED IN PART as to Request Nos. 34-36, 55, and 59-73.

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.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action. On May 29, 2022, Plaintiff Ernesto Molina-Molina entered into a warranty contract with Defendant General Motors, LLC by purchasing a 2022 Chevrolet Silverado 1500. Subsequently, Plaintiff alleges the vehicle contained or developed defects with its engine and electrical system.

On October 21, 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 May 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for June 29, with a post-mediation status conference on October 25.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 18, 34-36, 55, and 59-73. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion as to Request No. 18 and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to Request Nos. 34-36, 55, and 59-73.

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 December 9, 2022, Plaintiff propounded written discovery requests on Defendant, including Requests for Production, Set One. (Kowalski Decl., ¶ 15.) On January 9, 2023, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s requests. (Kowalski Decl., ¶ 16.) On January 16, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet-and-confer letter to Defendant’s counsel that highlighted deficiencies with Defendant’s responses. (Kowalski Decl., ¶ 18.) On February 13, Defendant’s counsel promised to provide supplemental discovery if a protective order was agreed to. (Kowalski Decl., ¶ 20.) On February 14, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the protective order and requested a date for when Defendant’s supplemental responses would be provided. (Kowalski Decl., ¶ 21.) While Defendant’s counsel provided some supplemental responses on March 7, no responses were provided for the requests at issue. (Kowalski Decl., ¶ 22.) On April 27, Plaintiff’s counsel requested a response to these requests by May 1. (Kowalski Decl., ¶ 23.) Defendant’s counsel did not provide a further response by the deadline. (Kowalski Decl., ¶ 25.) Thus, the court finds Plaintiff’s counsel sufficiently met and conferred and now addresses the disputed discovery requests.

Request for Production No. 18

Plaintiff requests all documents reflecting any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins, and recalls concerning the alleged transmission 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 this 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 and to the extent any documents are alleged to be covered by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, Defendant is ordered to provide a privilege log.

Request for Production No. 34

Plaintiff requests all documents used by Defendant to evaluate consumer requests for repurchases pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Because this request is not limited to the alleged transmission defect at issue in this action, the court finds this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome.

Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to this request. No further response is required.

Request for Production No. 35

Plaintiff requests all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to Defendant’s rules, policies, or procedures since 2017 concerning the issuance of refunds to buyers or providing replacement vehicles to buyers in the State of California under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Because this request is not limited to the alleged transmission defect at issue in this action, the court finds this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome.

Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to this request. No further response is required.

Request for Production No. 36

Plaintiff requests all documents which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to procedures used by Defendant for the handling of complaints by consumers regarding vehicles Defendant manufactured or distributed.

Because this request is not limited to the alleged transmission defect at issue in this action, the court finds this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome.

Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to this request. No further response is required.

Request for Production No. 55

Plaintiff requests Defendant’s recall policy and procedure. Because this request is not limited to the alleged transmission defect at issue in this action, the court finds this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome.

Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to this request. No further response is required.

Requests for Production Nos. 59-73

Plaintiff requests all documents related to, concerning, or regarding a group of Technical Service Bulletins (TSB) by Defendant, including any prior or subsequent versions, and any documents related to the decision to issue and/or modify the TSBs. The TSBs requested are PIP5844 (Request No. 59), PIE0676A (Request No. 60), PIP5847 (Request No. 61), 16-NA-019 (Request No. 62), 22-NA-066 (Request No. 63), PIT5926A (Request No. 64), PIP5792E (Request No. 65), 19-NA-044 (Request No. 66), PIE0698A (Request No. 67), 22-NA-184 (Request No. 68), 16-NA-222 (Request No. 69), 07-06-01-016H (Request No. 70), 21-NA-149 (Request No. 71), PIT5955 (Request No. 72), and PIP5887 (Request No. 73.)

Plaintiff argues Defendant sets forth various diagnostic and repair procedures for powertrain defects in various TSBs and that a TSB is critical as it will provide evidence of Defendant’s knowledge concerning certain defects. However, while Plaintiff requested fifteen different TSBs, Plaintiff’s separate statement references the same general statement of insufficiency for each request. Plaintiff does not describe how each TSB relates to the alleged defects at issue in this action.  Accordingly, the court finds Plaintiff failed to establish good cause to compel production.

Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to these requests. No further responses are required.

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 No. 18 and DENIED IN PART as to Request Nos. 34-36, 55, and 59-73.

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.