Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 23STCV24705, Date: 2024-09-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV24705, Date: 2024-09-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24705 Hearing Date: September 24, 2024 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 9-24-24

Case #: 23STCV24705

Trial Date: 2-18-25

FURTHER DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Abigail Renteria

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, General Motors LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Abigail Renteria alleges a General Motors vehicle suffers from defective body system, defective powertrain system, defective safety system, defective electrical system, defective braking system, and, defective noise system.

On October 10, 2023, plaintiff filed a complaint against General Motors LLC for Violations of the Song-Beverly Act Civil Code section 1793.2, Violation of the Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Express Warranty, and Violation of the Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Implied Warranty. General Motors answered the complaint on December 6, 2023.

RULING: Continued.

Plaintiff Luis Robles moves to compel further responses to request for production of documents, numbers 16-21. The dispute involves the request for general categories of documents to which Plaintiff characterizes as unmeritorious objections and non-responsive statements. Defendant in opposition maintains unnecessarily voluminous discovery, sufficient prior production, and an agreement under the stipulated protective order for any further production in compliance with the subject items. GM also challenges the sufficiency of the meet and confer effort. GM also stands by the objections, based on the responsiveness in prior production and denial of the necessity for production of information regarding other “CTS” vehicles, and the privilege objections.

Plaintiff in reply maintains it seeks information relevant to make, model and year, and the sufficiency of the meet and confer process.

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.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any internal analysis or investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding the DRIVABILITY DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [This request shall be interpreted to include, but not be limited to, any such investigation to determine the root cause of such DRIVABILITY DEFECT, any such investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for such DRIVABILITY DEFECT, any such investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with such DRIVABILITY DEFECT, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedures, any savings analysis not implementing a proposed repair procedures, etc.]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any communications YOU have had regarding DRIVABILITY DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls concerning the DRIVABILITY DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to DRIVABILITY DEFECT, in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited to any databases in YOUR possession with information from dealers, service departments, parts departments, or warranty departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim or reported failure

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning failure rates of vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE as a result of DRIVABILITY DEFECT

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any fixes for DRIVABILITY DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

The court generally adheres to a policy limiting discovery to the make, model and year. The complaint identifies the claims involve defects from the body, powertrain, safety, electrical, braking, and, noise systems. It remains unclear how the term “drivability defect” applies to said alleged issues. The court therefore finds the term “drivability defect” constitutes an exceptionally broad term, which permeates the subject outstanding items, and invites dispute well beyond the scope of the alleged vehicle defects. [See Declaration of Noreelie Panhwar.] (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.) The terms also support the propriety and trade secret objections.

It remains unclear as to whether refinement occurred through review of the already produced documents, or Person Most Qualified (PMQ) depositions, or whether further determinations remains outstanding. Other than reference to “trouble code” based repairs, brake sensor and suspension noises, the summary arguments of Plaintiff insufficiently justifies the broad base of the request. [Panhwar Decl.] The court cannot allow the subject discovery to proceed as phrased. The court in no way supports discovery in order to allow consumer law firms to build databases with court ordered discovery of material beyond the scope of the actual pending claims.

The court assumes familiarity between counsel, and invites the parties to further meet and confer in order to refine the terms to items originating from the trouble codes as they relate to specific systems. Any and all agreed upon terms shall remain limited to make, model, year. The scope of discovery may also include negotiated search terms. Upon agreement to terms, General Motors must also provide a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c).)

The court cannot grant the motion as presented, but also declines to outright deny the motion if outstanding discovery, or at least a privilege log remains to be generated. The court therefore continues the hearing in order to preserve the timeliness of the motion and allow the parties to refine any issues, should further continuance be required. The court will continue the hearing to a new date. Nine (9) court days before the new hearing date both sides may submit an updated brief of no more than five (5) pages updating the court as to the status of the dispute. If all issues are resolved, the court invites Plaintiff to take the motion off-calendar. If the issue remains on-calendar, the court advises the parties to follow the guidelines adhered to by the court. Thus, any dispute must be specifically articulated whereby the court can potentially craft a form of relief, without creating an open ended request.

Trial set for February 18, 2025.

Plaintiff to give notice.