Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case 21STCV31115 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs William Burns and Terri Burns (jointly, “Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant General Motors, LLC (“GM”) on August 23, 2021. The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act, (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act, and (3) fraudulent inducement - concealment. On February 14, 2022, the Court issued an Order sustaining GM’s demurrer to the

third cause of action (fraudulent inducement – concealment), without leave to amend.

Plaintiffs allege that they purchased a new 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 on or about July 18, 2019 (the “Subject Vehicle”), which is manufactured by GM. (Compl., ¶¶ 5, 58.) Plaintiffs allege that notwithstanding GM’s four attempts to repair the Subject Vehicle, Plaintiffs continue to experience transmission issues caused by a defective transmission in the Subject Vehicle. (Compl., ¶ 38.)

On October 7, 2021, Plaintiffs served GM with Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Kim Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) GM served responses on November 8, 2021 that were subsequently verified on February 8, 2022. (Kim Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 2.) Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for GM sent meet and confer correspondence regarding GM’s responses to the Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 6-8.)

On July 5, 2022, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) regarding the discovery dispute. (Kim Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. 6.) The Court’s July 5, 2022 minute order provides, inter alia, that “[t]he parties have fulfilled their IDC obligation for the subject issues identified in plaintiff’s IDC statement dated 06/21/22. Plaintiff has until 08/05/22 to file any motions to compel/motions to compel further responses regarding those issues.”[1]

Plaintiffs assert that as of the date of the filing of the instant motion, GM has not provided a complete document production or supplemental responses. (Kim Decl., ¶ 10.)

Plaintiffs now move for an order compelling GM to provide verified further responses to Requests Nos. 1, 3, 9, 14-16, 31-33, and 37-69 of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One. GM opposes.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a) permits a propounding party to move for an order compelling a further response to a demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that a statement of compliance is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery sought and must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).)

As set forth above, Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 1, 3, 9, 14-16, 31-33, and 37-69. As an initial matter, GM asserts that Plaintiffs did not meet and confer with GM in good faith. However, as set forth above, Plaintiffs’ counsel set meet and confer correspondence to GM’s counsel concerning the subject requests and participated in an IDC. Thus, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer with GM in good faith.

Request No. 1 seeks “[a]ll repair orders including the front and back of each page, any handwritten notes, any hard cards and accounting copies regarding, pertaining, or relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”[2] Request No. 3 seeks “[a]ll warranty repair documents regarding, pertaining, or relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” Request No. 9 seeks “[a]ll recall DOCUMENTS regarding, pertaining, or relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited to, service bulletins and/or technical service bulletins.”

Request No. 14 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS evidencing any COMMUNICATION regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” Request No. 15 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS evidencing any COMMUNICATION between Plaintiffs and Defendant.” Request No. 16 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS evidencing any COMMUNICATION between Defendant and any independent dealer, service facility, and/or any other person or entity providing assistance to Defendant regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

In its opposition, GM asserts that “[r]egarding Request for Production Nos. 1, 3 and 13-16, GM has already produced responsive documents concerning Plaintiffs’ Silverado; ordering GM to produce more would be unnecessary.” (Opp’n at p. 6:4-5.)[3] However, GM’s responses to Requests Nos. 1, 3, 9, and 14-16 each set forth objections and provide that “GM will comply in part,” as further specified in the responses.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause for further responses to Requests Nos. 1, 3, 9, and 14-16. As Plaintiffs note, this case involves alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act, and the repair orders for the Subject Vehicle are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. As to the requested warranty repair documents, Plaintiffs assert that they are probative to show the defects contained in the Subject Vehicle and whether GM’s technicians followed proper instructions in attempting to repair them. In addition, Plaintiffs assert that the requested recall documents are necessary to determine if one or more of the alleged nonconformities which affects the Subject Vehicle was addressed or covered by the recall or service bulletins. As to the requested communication documents, Plaintiffs assert that they “disagree[] that the evaluation of Plaintiffs’ repurchase or replacement request was in good faith and need[] the records identified by this Request as they are likely demonstrative of any directive to deny any repurchase requests during the initial customer contact phase.” (Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement at p. 12:6-9.)

Request No. 31 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS relating to the Customer Call Center, including but not limited to, all flow charts, processes, and/ or scripts.” Request No. 32 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS relating to any Customer Loyalty Program or After Warranty Assistance

Program that YOU had in effect during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.” Request No. 33 seeks “All DOCUMENTS related to the Technical Hot Line.”

Plaintiffs contend that “[h]ow GM handled their calls and addressed their complaints is clearly relevant. Further, if GM failed to conduct an appropriate investigation or even failed to comply with its own internal policies, that meets the good-faith requirements of the Song-Beverly Act, that is grounds for a civil penalty.” (Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement at p. 16:7-10.)

In its discovery responses, GM objected to Requests Nos. 31-33 and stated that no documents would be produced. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established good cause for discovery sought in Requests Nos. 31-33, but the Court also finds that there is merit to GM’s objections based on overbreadth. Therefore, the Court limits the scope of the requests to documents pertaining to the Customer Call Center, any Customer Loyalty Program or After Warranty Assistance Program, and the Technical Hot Line, which relate to Plaintiffs and the Subject Vehicle.

Plaintiffs note that Request Nos. 37-69 seek information relating to similar complaints made by other owners of vehicles of the same year, make, and model as Plaintiffs’ Subject Vehicle.

More specifically, the requests seek documents relating to complaints by California owners of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle regarding issues with premature brake wear, the brake monitor, the transmission jerking and slamming hard into gear, the transmission temperature reaching above 250 degrees while towing, a brake system

malfunction warning, the brake system control module, the seatbelt pretensioner, erratic shifting, a consistent squeak from front driver’s side wheel area while driving, the driveshaft seal, and the front center seatbelt not being attached, as identified on certain specified repair orders.

The requests also seek surveys, reports, summaries, or other documents in which California owners of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle have reported to GM problems with premature brake wear, the brake monitor, the transmission jerking and slamming hard into gear, the transmission temperature reaching above 250 degrees while towing, a brake system malfunction warning, the brake system control module, the seatbelt pretensioner,

erratic shifting, a consistent squeak from front driver’s side wheel area while driving, the driveshaft seal, and the front center seatbelt not being attached, as identified on certain specified repair orders.

In addition, the requests seek documents which relate or refer to the numbers of California owners of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle who have complained of issues with premature brake wear, the brake monitor, the transmission jerking and slamming hard into gear, the transmission temperature reaching above 250 degrees while towing, a brake system malfunction warning, the brake system control module, the seatbelt pretensioner, erratic shifting, a consistent squeak from front driver’s side wheel area while driving, the driveshaft seal, and the front center seatbelt not being attached, as identified on certain specified repair orders.

In its responses, GM objected to Requests Nos. 37-69 and stated that no documents would be produced. GM asserts that documents about other vehicles “of the same year, make, and model” of the Subject Vehicle are irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ pending claims. Plaintiffs contend that similar complaints may serve as proof of the existence of a defect or nonconformity, as well as GM’s knowledge of widespread warranty problems and GM’s failure to act despite this

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established good cause for discovery relating to “other vehicles,” as requested in Requests Nos. 37-69. Moreover, the requests are limited in scope to information relating to complaints by California owners of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part. The Court orders GM to provide further verified responses and to produce documents responsive to Requests Nos.

1, 3, 9, 14-16, 31-33, and 37-69 of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, subject to the limitations set forth above, within 30 days of the date of this Order.¿¿

[1]Plaintiffs’ June 21, 2022 IDC statement indicates, inter alia, that Plaintiffs seek further responses/documents for “Req. for Prod. 1-3, 9, 13-16, 31-33, 37-69, 75-78, 81-82. GM’s responses and doc. prod. were not code-compliant or fully responsive.”

[2]The “SUBJECT VEHICLE” is defined in Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents as “the motor vehicle that is the subject of this lawsuit as identified in the complaint filed in this action.”

[3]The Court notes that GM does not address Request No. 9 in the opposition.

WILLIAM BURNS, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, et al., Defendants.	Case No.:	21STCV31115
	Hearing Date:	January 24, 2023
	Hearing Time:	10:00 a.m.
	[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NOS. 1, 3, 9, 14-16, 31-33, AND 37-69

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50