Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 23STCV14979, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV14979, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14979 Hearing Date: April 18, 2024 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 4-18-24

Case #: 23STCV14979

Trial Date: 10-28-24

FURTHER DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Luis Robles

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, FCA US LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On June 27, 2023, plaintiff Luis Robles filed a complaint against General Motors LLC for Violation of the Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Express Warranty, Violation of the Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Implied Warranty, Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Civil Code section 1793.2, and Violation of the Song Beverly Act Civil Code section 1793.22—Tanner Consumer Protection Act. On August 21, 2023, General Motors answered the complaint.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Luis Robles moves to compel further responses to request for production of documents, numbers 13-16 and 34-35. The dispute involves the request for general categories of documents to which Plaintiff characterizes as unmeritorious objections and non-responsive statements. While the complaint lacks a single factual reference to a part or operating system within the vehicle, Plaintiff maintains the items address “transmission issues,” including “excessive vibration” and “engine” noise. Defendant in opposition maintains Plaintiff failed to engage in a meaningful meet and confer effort, the objections remain valid, and the court should refrain from the imposition of any sanctions. Plaintiff in reply challenges the narrow definitions applied by Defendant. Plaintiff maintains it seeks information relevant to make, model and year. Plaintiff reiterates the request for sanctions.

Due to the increasing volume of filed Lemon Law cases in this courtroom and presumably countywide, including the increasing number of motions to compel further responses, particularly for document production, this court generally adheres to certain, consistent guidelines for its cases: an approach allowing discovery into the relevant make and model year for all impacted systems or parts, without opening the door for a general inquiry into any and all lemon law claims filed against vehicle manufacturers for all makes and models, including varying individual and potential system defects. The goal is to facilitate robust adjudication of the case, without imposing any burden on defendant to determine the cause of the purported defects, while also allowing Plaintiff the opportunity to investigate. The court in no way doctrinally adheres to this policy. The court established this policy based on established practice standards common among counsel in this field based on standards established and reviewed by practice and reviewed at least in party by appellate courts. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 153-154; Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc., supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 1104-1105.) No doubt other courts may take different approaches. The court in no way seeks to invite comparisons with other courtrooms. The court only notes its reasoning behind its policy.

Under the Song-Beverly Act, “[a] plaintiff pursuing an action under the Act has the burden to prove that (1) the vehicle had a nonconformity covered by the express warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle (the nonconformity element); (2) the vehicle was presented to an authorized representative of the manufacturer of the vehicle for repair (the presentation element); and (3) the manufacturer or his representative did not repair the nonconformity after a reasonable number of repair attempts (the failure to repair element). (Civ.Code, § 1793.2; Ibrahim v. Ford Motor Co. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 878, 886–887, 263 Cal.Rptr. 64.)” (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.)

The court addresses the categories of documents.

All DOCUMENTS IDENTIFYTNG repurchases made by YOU of the 2018 Chevrolet Silverado, vehicles and allegedly containing any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU for repair. (For purposes of this request, the term "IDENTIFYING" seeks documents establishing the name of the complaining PERSON, the complaints made by such PERSON(S), the names of any lawyers involved as well as case names, court numbers, and locations and whether such repurchase was voluntary or pursuant to a court order.)

All DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, or referring to complaints by owners of the 2018 Chevrolet Silverado vehicle regarding any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.

All surveys, reports, summaries, or other DOCUMENTS in which owners of the 2018 Chevrolet Silverado vehicle have reported to YOU problems with any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair. (For example, YOU survey YOUR new car buyers. If any of the survey responses refer to the above-listed conditions, defects, or nonconformities, Plaintiffs request these 17 DOCUMENTS be produced.)

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, relate, or refer to the numbers of owners of the 2018 Chevrolet Silverado vehicle who have complained of any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the SUBJECT VEHICLE to YOU or YOUR authorized repair facility for repair.

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to technical service bulletins which have been issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

All DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, or relate to recalls which have been issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

The categories limit information to the make, model and year, but the requests lacks sufficient articulation and indication limiting the inquiry into the indicated area of failure and attempted repair(s) to said parts or systems. While the complaint lacks said information, the court assumes the parties are familiar with the factual basis of the dispute, including “transmission issues,” “excessive vibration” and “engine” noise.

Assuming familiarity between the parties, the court finds the general requests overbroad in that defects, nonconformities, complaints, surveys, and warranty repair efforts and repurchases, can cover any number of items well beyond the scope of the subject matter. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224–225; (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.) As stated in the guidelines above, the court declines to allow open ended broad based discovery phrased like the subject items in order to allow law firms to build databases with court ordered discovery of material beyond the scope of the claim.

Notwithstanding the validity of the objections, the flat out refusal to produce any documents in response to numbers 13-16, or engage in efforts to refine the search terms, lacks support. The court declines to determine whether the previously produced documents sufficiently comply. The requests still seek valid information, as specifically related to the vaguely defined terms. Thus, if General Motors maintains ALL of the subject information was previously provided, including for categories numbers 34 and 35, General Motors may provide a code conforming response and objections. If General Motors maintains the information constitutes privileged information in any form, General Motors, at a minimum, must provide a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c).)

If necessary for the presentation of further responses, the court invites the parties to refine the scope of the inquiry. The court declines to otherwise engage in specific refinement of the inquiry into terms most likely within the domain of experts and persons most knowledgeable based on the operative complaint and phrased requested presented.

The motion is therefore granted subject to refinement to a more precise statement of categories limited to make, model, year and deficiency(ies), if necessary. The parties may negotiate search terms, if helpful. The court reserves the right to direct discovery to a referee, particularly if supervision over electronic production, any PMQ deposition(s), or other court resource intensive requests, if the subject action returns to the court on continued overbroad discovery inquiries.

Thus, subject to further refinement, the court orders General Motors to provide further, more factually articulated, code conforming responses, which may also include a privilege log. Intentionally obstreperous objections and/or refusals to produce documents, without factual accountability of previously produced documents or a statement of no other existing documents, may lead to further orders with increasing sanctions and a referee referral.

The minimum amount of sanctions for each motion to compel production of documents increased to $1,000 per motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.050, subd. (a)(1).) The court therefore imposes sanctions in the amount of $1,000 joint and severally imposed against both Defendant General Motors and counsel for Defendant, and payable within 30 days of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Trial set for October 28, 2024.

Plaintiff to give notice.