Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case Number: 21STCV27165, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV27165, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27165 Hearing Date: September 20, 2023 Dept: 31

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. It is granted as to Request Nos. 54 and 56 subject to the protective order, and otherwise denied. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

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

On receipt of a response to an inspection demand, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2031.310(a).)

A motion to compel further response to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” CCP § 2031.310(b)(1). “To establish ‘good cause,’ the burden is on the moving party to show both: [1] Relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and [2] Specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). The fact that there is no alternative source for the information sought is an important factor in establishing ‘good cause’ for inspection. But it is not essential in every case.” (Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:1495.6 (citations omitted).) “Declarations are generally used to show the requisite ‘good cause’ for an order to compel inspection. The declarations must contain ‘specific facts’ rather than mere conclusions.” (Id. at 8:1495.7 (citation omitted).) “The declarations may be on information and belief, if necessary. However, in such cases, the ‘specific facts’ supporting such information and belief (the sources of the information) must also be alleged.” (Id. at 8:1495.8 (citation omitted).)

“If ‘good cause’ is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure (the same as on motions to compel answers to interrogatories or deposition questions. . . ).” (Id. at 8:1496 (citation omitted).)

Trial courts are vested with “wide discretion” to allow or prohibit discovery. (Williams v. Superior Court¿(2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

Meet and Confer

The motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a declaration showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues outside of court. (CCP §§2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).)

The Court finds the parties have met the meet and confer requirement.

Discussion

Plaintiff requests that the court order Defendant to provide further responses and documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1, 7, 17, 22, 23, 24, 34, 35, 38, 41, 42, 45, 48, 54, 56, 66, 70, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, and 80.

The information and documents sought show whether and the extent to which the Subject Vehicle failed to conform to the applicable warranties and whether Defendant knew or should have known of the alleged defects and its inability to repair them. The information is probative of Defendant’s decision not to repurchase or replace the Subject Vehicle and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence of Defendant’s liability.

Specifically, Plaintiff requested the following categories of documents:

No. 1: all documents regarding the subject vehicle that are maintained in defendant’s databases.

GM objected to this request on the grounds that the term “regarding” is vague and ambiguous, and on the grounds that the request is overbroad, burdensome, oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, GM objected to this request to the extent it seeks documents that are confidential, and involve propriety and trade secret information, and are protected by attorney-client privilege and/or work product privilege. GM stated, subject to its objections, that GM would produce the following documents: any repair orders that GM may have obtained from GM-authorized dealerships who may have serviced, maintained or repaired the subject vehicle, the factory invoice, Global Warranty History Report, any Service Request Activity Report(s), Vehicle Summary and Repair Order Details applicable to the subject vehicle. GM also served a supplemental response and produced the following documents: Repair Order Detail; Repair Order Summary; BARs invoice; the Global Warranty History Report; Service Request Activity Report; incidentally obtained repair orders; and incidentally obtained sales documents.”

Plaintiff contends that a further response to this request is warranted because the requested documents are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. In opposition, GM contends that GM produced all responsive documents within its possession, custody, and control, as expressly permitted under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.

In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has still failed to provide supplemental responses to No. 1. Plaintiff contends Defendant has not produced all repair orders, work orders, technician time records, cost of part and labor records, technician notes, technician line repair assistance requests, vehicle inquiry reports, and any other documents that refer, relate to, or concern Plaintiff’s vehicle.

To the extent that the supplemental responses as to these documents have not been provided, the Court orders Defendant to provide the supplemental responses as stated above. However, as to any other documents, Defendant has stated it does not have any other documents. Thus, the request as to No. 1. is denied.

No. 7: all documents including recalls, technical service bulletins, special service messages, dealer alerts, reports, Star Reports, campaigns, extended warranties, dealer advisories, summaries, etc. that were issued for the subject vehicle.

GM objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not limited in scope to Plaintiff’s alleged concerns with the subject vehicle at issue in this action. Subject to and without waiving these objections, GM will comply in part and produce a list of technical service bulletins (“TSBs”) and informational service bulletins (“ISBs”) issued for vehicles of the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle. After it has produced a list of TSBs and ISBs, GM will – at Plaintiff’s request – search for and produce, if located, copies of a reasonable number of TSBs and ISBs, if any, that Plaintiff has identified as specifically related to the defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. GM also will produce a copy of the bulletins for every field action, including any recalls, if any, it issued for the subject vehicle.

Plaintiff again states Defendant did not produce all documents, but Plaintiff has not stated whether it knows for certain Defendant has these documents in its possession, custody and control. As discussed above, Defendant has stated it does not have any other documents. Thus, this request is denied.

Nos. 17, 22, 23, 24, 34, 35, 38, 41, 42, 45, and 48

No. 17 – all documents, including ESI and emails, concerning any internal analysis or investigation by Defendant or on Defendant’s behalf regarding engine defects in Chevrolet vehicles equipped with the same engine as the subject vehicle.

No. 22 – all documents concerning field reports, dealer contacts, warranty claims, customer complaints, claims, reported failures regarding engine defects in vehicles equipped with the same transmission as the subject vehicle, including any documents concerning your response to each field report, customer complaint, reported failure, and warranty claim. No. 23 – all documents, including ESI and emails, regarding when Chevrolet engineers learned, became aware of, or were notified about, engine defects in Chevrolet vehicles that are equipped with the same engine as the subject vehicle.

No. 24 – all documents, including ESI and emails, regarding when any member of your Recall committee first learned, became aware of, or was notified about, engine defects in Chevrolet vehicles that equipped with the same engine as the subject vehicle, or problems or potential problems with the engine of Chevrolet vehicles that equipped with the same engine as the subject vehicle.

No. 34- all documents, including ESI and emails, concerning any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, service messages, technical service bulletins and recalls concerning the engine defects in Chevrolet vehicles that are equipped with the same engine as the subject vehicle.

No. 35 - all documents, including ESI and emails, concerning any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, service messages, technical service bulletins and recalls concerning the engine defects in Chevrolet vehicles that are equipped with the same engine as the subject vehicle.

No. 38 - all documents, including ESI and emails, concerning any fixes for the engine defects in Chevrolet vehicles that are equipped with the same engine as the subject vehicle.

No. 41 - all documents, including power points, memoranda, reports, warnings, investigations, assessments, engineering reviews, summaries, executive reviews, executive summaries, etc., that were prepared by any of YOUR engineers, concerning the engine defects in Chevrolet vehicles that are equipped with the same engine as the subject vehicle.

No. 42 - all documents, including power points, reports, summaries, investigations, assessment, etc., that were provided to any Vice President, any team or committee member responsible for quality issues, or any team or committee member responsible for recall issues, concerning the engine defects in Chevrolet vehicles that are equipped with the same engine as the subject vehicle.

No. 45 - The user manual for the following databases: 1) Proving Grounds Testing Information System (“PGTIS”); 2) Parts Return Analysis System (“PRAS”); 3) Customer Assistance Inquiry Records (“CAIR”); 4) Customer Assistance Group Remote Imagining System (“CAGRIS” – field report data); 5) Global Warranty System (“GWS”); 5) Quality Narrative Analyzer (“QNA”); 6) Data Analysis Product Information System (“DAPIS”); 7) the “Google of Chrysler” – Electronic Corporate Issue Management System (“e-CIMS”); and 8) Mopar Parts system.

No. 48 – all documents, including emails, which reflect corrective action process(es) and/or preventative action(s) taken (“preventative action” as used herein means an action which would prevent a failure that has not occurred) relating to the engine defects in Chevrolet vehicles that are equipped with the same engine as the subject vehicle.

Among other things, as to these requests, GM objects on the grounds that they are overbroad and seek documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not limited to the subject vehicle at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.

Plaintiff contends that further responses to these requests are warranted because the Vehicle exhibited various engine defects. The court disagrees. Plaintiffs’ motion does not explain how documents regarding investigation into alleged defects or knowledge about alleged defects on other vehicles will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding Plaintiff’s vehicle, other than statements to this effect. This request seeks documents without limitation into investigation by GM regarding engine defects in all Chevy Vehicles. Thus, this request is overbroad as drafted, and Plaintiff’s motion is denied with respect to Nos. 17, 22, 23, 24, 34, 35, 38, 41, 42, 45, and 48.

70, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, and 80

No. 54 – all documents that YOU use or have used, since 2016, to evaluate consumer requests for repurchases pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

GM objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not limited to the subject vehicle at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request as it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM’s internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.

Subject to the terms and conditions of the Protective Order and in accordance with the Informal Discovery Conference and pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230, GM refers Plaintiff to the following produced documents: the Service Policies and Procedures Manuals and GM’s Call Center’s Policies and Procedures.

Plaintiff seeks a further response because she argues this request seeks documents and information concerning Defendant's Lemon Law, warranty, and recall policies and procedures. Courts have repeatedly found these documents relevant to SBA claims.

The court agrees with Plaintiff that an order compelling a further response is warranted. If GM contends that portions of responsive documents are privileged, GM is to provide a response and a privilege log. Otherwise, Plaintiffs’ request is reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence and Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause warranting an order compelling a further response. To the extent the documents contain confidential information, it should be produced subject to the protective order. As such, the request as to No. 54 is granted.

No. 56 – All training manuals and/or other documents relating to the training given to YOUR employees, agents, or representatives, since 2016, in connection with handling consumer lemon law repurchase requests.

GM objected to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, burdensome and on the grounds that it sought documents not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. GM additionally objected to this request to the extent it sought documents protected by attorney-client privilege and/or work product privilege, and confidential, proprietary and trade secret information.

Plaintiff contends that a further response to this request is warranted because this request seeks documents and information concerning Defendant's Lemon Law, warranty, and recall policies and procedures. Courts have repeatedly found these documents relevant to SBA claims. In opposition, GM contends that no order compelling a further response to this request is warranted because GM has agreed to produce various documents pursuant to protective order, including documents responsive to this request.

No. 66 - All LEMON LAW DOCUMENTS published by YOU and provided to YOUR employees, agents, and representatives.

GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms “LEMON LAW DOCUMENTS,” “published,” and “provided” are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request as it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, not reasonably limited in time or geographic scope, and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not limited to the subject vehicle or issues in this action. GM further objects to this Request because it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.

Subject to the terms and conditions of the Protective Order and in accordance with the Informal Discovery Conference and pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230, GM produced the following documents: the Service Policies and Procedures Manuals; GM’s Call Center’s Policies and Procedures; and CA CEC Training Material.

The Court finds this request is overbroad, as it is not reasonably tailored by particular types of documents, within a particular timeframe, or limited to particular types of vehicles, and likely to require significant production on Defendant’s behalf. Thus, the request as to No. 66 is denied.

No. 70 – all documents, including ESI and emails, regarding any communications between YOU and any government agency or entity (e.g., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), or any other similar government agency) regarding engine defects in Chevrolet vehicles that are equipped with the same engine as the subject vehicle.

No. 73 - All Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (“TREAD”) reports YOU submitted concerning Chevrolet vehicles that are equipped with the same engine as the subject vehicle.

No. 74 - All NHTSA complaints in YOUR possession that relate to engine defects in Chevrolet vehicles that are equipped with the same engine as the subject vehicle.

Among other objections, GM objects to these Requests because it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not limited to the subject vehicle at issue in this action. GM also objects to these Requests on the grounds that they are burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.

The Court finds these requests cannot be granted because they seek documents without limitation as to other Chevrolet Vehicles. The request is overbroad as drafted, and Plaintiff fails to demonstrate why a request seeking reports, documents, or complaints on other Chevrolet Vehicles is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on the Subject Vehicle.

No. 72 - All Early Warning Reports (“EWR”) YOU submitted to NHTSA concerning CHEVROLET VEHICLES that are equipped with the same engine as the subject vehicle.

GM stated that reports submitted to the NHTSA are publicly available on its website. Plaintiff contends that a further response to this request is warranted because responsive documents are generally relevant.

Documents submitted to the NHTSA constitute a public record, and GM has pointed Plaintiff to how to access such documents on NHTSA’s website. Plaintiff does not contend that Plaintiff is unable to obtain these documents or that documents submitted to NHTSA are not a public record. Thus, GM’s response is sufficient, and Plaintiffs’ motion is denied with respect to request no. 72.

No. 78 - All documents reflecting performance standards relating to the engine in Chevrolet vehicles that are equipped with the same engine the subject vehicle.

GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms “reflecting,” “performance standards,” and “relating to” are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request as it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM further objects to this Request because it is burdensome and oppressive,

The request is overbroad, and seeks information relating ot other vehicles without providing good cause. The request is denied as to no. 78.

Nos. 79 and 80- all documents including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning DCT P2138, and DCT P015B.

GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms “concerning” is vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM further objects to this Request as it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case

The request is overbroad, and seeks information relating to other vehicles without providing good cause. The request is denied as to nos. 79-80.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. First, Plaintiff has not requested sanctions in the memorandum of points and authorities. (CCP section 2023.040.) And second, sanctions are not warranted here in light of the ruling.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. It is granted as to Request Nos. 54 and 56 subject to the protective order, and otherwise denied. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.