Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 24STCV06806, Date: 2025-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV06806    Hearing Date: April 16, 2025    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 4-16-25

Case: 24STCV06806

Trial Date: 6-2-25

FURTHER DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Gabriela Aburto

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, General Motors LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one)

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Gabriela Aburto alleges a General Motors Chevy Traverse vehicle suffers from defects in the body system, powertrain, safety, electrical, braking and noise systems.

On March 19, 2024, plaintiff filed a complaint against General Motors LLC for violations of Civil Code sections 1791.1, 1791.2, 1793.2 and 1794. General Motors answered on June 27, 2024.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Gabriela Aburto moves to compel further responses to request for production of documents (set one), numbers 16-21. Plaintiff maintains the objections lack merit and demonstrate a lack of good faith. Defendant General Motors (GM) in opposition maintains the numerous separate requests constitute an unnecessarily voluminous and overbroad discovery request. GM challenges the sufficiency of the meet and confer effort, and stands by the objections, based on the responsiveness in prior production and denial of the necessity for production of information regarding other unrelated vehicles. The court electronic filing system shows no reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

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 requests are as follows:

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 NOISE VIBRATION HARSHNESS 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 NOISE VIBRATION HARSHNESS DEFECT, any such investigation to design a permanent repair procedure for such NOISE VIBRATION HARSHNESS DEFECT, any such investigation into the failure rates of parts associated with such NOISE VIBRATION HARSHNESS DEFECT, any cost analysis for implementing a proposed repair procedures, any savings analysis not implementing a proposed repair procedures, etc.]

17. All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any communications YOU have had regarding NOISE VIBRATION HARSHNESS DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

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 NOISE VIBRATION HARSHNESS DEFECT in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

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 NOISE VIBRATION HARSHNESS 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.

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 NOISE VIBRATION HARSHNESS DEFECT.

21. All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning or relating to any fixes for NOISE VIBRATION HARSHNESS 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 with the body system, powertrain, safety, electrical, braking and noise systems. The court declines to allow open ended broad based discovery spanning multiple years, and other makes and models under the GM umbrella of vehicles regardless of any potential shared parts, common issues/defects, etc. In ordering discovery, the court seeks adjudication on the applicable vehicle, and discourages discovery practices intended to facilitate the creation of databases for Plaintiff’s firms to document every defective vehicle across a fleet of manufactured vehicles. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224–225.)

The subject items only address the “noise vibration” defect. While it remains unclear in the motion as to the system, components, parts, etc. that may contribute to the claim, the court finds the objections obstreperous and demonstrating a lack of sufficient effort to refine the terms on an otherwise legally undisputed defect. In other words, Plaintiff remains entitled to conduct discovery into the claim subject to further definition and refinement.

The court assumes familiarity between counsel, and invites the parties to further meet and confer in order to refine database search terms to items, such as trouble codes, reports, similar defect reports and recalls, etc. All search terms must directly relate to the “noise vibration” claims in the subject action again limited to the subject vehicle model and year only. If GM still asserts any trade secret or privilege objections, GM must produce a privilege log of any and all items. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c).) If further refinement can occur via Person Most Qualified (PMQ) deposition(s), the parties may stipulate to an extension of time for discussion on terms. 

If GM otherwise continues to maintain no applicable documents upon further discussion and agreement to terms, or refuses to agree to terms, Plaintiff may seek appointment of a discovery referee, whereby the court will consider appointment of a discovery referee to conduct a robust review of each and every disputed word, term, document, phrase, privilege, etc. submitted by GM as potentially demonstrative of obstreperous conduct. The order can vest the arbitrator with authority to award sanctions in favor of the moving party, and an allocation of fees as well. The court can alternatively consider an issue or evidentiary sanctions motion for failure to comply with the order, thereby allowing presumptions of system defect.

The motion is therefore GRANTED. The parties are ordered to meet and confer within 15 days of this order. Production shall occur no later than 30 days after the lapse of the meet and confer period.

Plaintiff makes no request for sanctions.

Trial remains set for June 2, 2025.

Plaintiff to give notice.