Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV31115, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31115    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs William Burns and Terri Burns (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) 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’ Special Interrogatories, 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’ Special Interrogatories, 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 served amended responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (Kim Decl., ¶ 10.)

Plaintiffs now move for an order compelling GM to provide verified further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 14 and 40-45 of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One. GM opposes.

Legal Standard 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a) permits a propounding party to move for an order compelling a further response to an interrogatory if the propounding party deems that an answer is “evasive or incomplete” or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 requires that each answer to an interrogatory must be as “complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).)¿A motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a) must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).)

Discussion  

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs indicate in the reply that “Plaintiffs hereby withdraw their Request for Further Responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 14, 40, and 43.” (Reply at p. 2:2-3.)

Thus, the items that remain in dispute are Special Interrogatories Nos. 41, 42, 44, and 45.

As another preliminary matter, GM asserts that Plaintiffs did not meet and confer with GM in good faith. However, as set forth above, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent 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.

Special Interrogatories

Special Interrogatory No. 41 provides, “[p]lease describe with particularity how the individual(s) identified in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory above perform their duties.”[2] GM’s response to this interrogatory provides, “GM refers Plaintiffs to its Response to Special Interrogatory No. 40.” GM’s response to Special Interrogatory No. 40 sets forth solely objections.

Special Interrogatory No. 42 provides, “[e]xplain with particularity all aspects of YOUR investigation into whether the SUBJECT VEHICLE qualified or was eligible for repurchase or replacement pursuant to The Song-Beverly Warranty Act.” GM’s response to this interrogatory provides as follows:

“GM objects to this Interrogatory on grounds it is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. GM also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.

Subject to and without waiving any objections, GM states that it is informed and believes that verifiable concerns were resolved, and the SUBJECT VEHICLE has been adequately repaired within a reasonable number of repair attempts. To the extent that Plaintiffs or a non-GM authorized facility caused or contributed to Plaintiffs’ concerns or to the extent Plaintiffs’ failure to properly maintain the SUBJECT VEHICLE caused or contributed to Plaintiffs’ concerns, such concerns are not covered under the warranty. GM evaluates each case in good faith in accordance with the provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code § 1794 et seq.) Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, GM refers Plaintiffs to the documents it has produced in response to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, particularly the New Vehicle Limited Warranty, Service Request Activity Report(s), the Global Warranty History Report for the SUBJECT VEHICLE, and any repair orders that GM may have obtained from GM-authorized dealerships who may have serviced, maintained, or repaired the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Special Interrogatory No. 44 provides, “Identify all DOCUMENTS consulted, reviewed and/or obtained in YOUR investigation.” GM’s response to this interrogatory provides, “GM refers Plaintiffs to its Response to Special Interrogatory No. 42. GM also objects to this Interrogatory on grounds the terms ‘consulted, reviewed and/or obtained’ are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.”

Special Interrogatory No. 45 provides, “Identify all individuals responsible for YOUR decision to not repurchase or replace the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” GM’s response to this interrogatory provides, “GM refers Plaintiffs to its Response to Special Interrogatory No. 42.”

Plaintiffs assert that the responses provided are incomplete, evasive, and non-responsive to the questions posed. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause for further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 41, 42, 44, and 45.

As to Special Interrogatory No. 41, Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to a response that details how the individuals identified in Special Interrogatory No. 40 ensure that GM does not violate the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The Court agrees that the information sought in this interrogatory is relevant to the instant action. In its separate statement, GM asserts that “Plaintiffs’ instant motion seeks an order compelling GM to withdraw its objections and produce supplemental responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 40-45, yet GM has provided fully Code-compliant responses, further information, and specific identification and reference to documents responsive to these interrogatories, as prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.230.” (GM’s Separate Statement at p. 5:6-11.) However, GM only set forth objections in response to Special Interrogatory No. 41.

With regard to Special Interrogatory Nos. 42, 44, and 45, Plaintiffs note that under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, “the manufacturer has an affirmative duty to replace a vehicle or make restitution to the buyer if the manufacturer is unable to repair the new vehicle after a reasonable number of repair attempts…” (Lukather v. General Motors, LLC (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1050.) Plaintiffs also note that “[i]f the buyer establishes that the failure to comply was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages.” (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (c).) Plaintiffs assert that “a component of Plaintiffs’ damages is that [GM] is subject to a civil penalty for willfully failing to repurchase Plaintiffs’ defective vehicle. [GM] has denied as much, claims its denial was in good faith and it has asserted good faith as an affirmative defense in its Answer to the Complaint. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the factual information concerning the scope and manner of [GM’s] evaluation in order to test the legitimacy of [GM’s] affirmative defenses and conversely, to elicit evidence in support of her case.” (Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement at p. 7:6-11.)[3] The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the information sought Special Interrogatory Nos. 42, 44, and 45 is relevant to the instant action.

In the opposition, GM asserts that Plaintiffs’ “requests” impermissibly seek trade secret material. (See Major Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. C (2018 Declaration of Huizhen Lu), ¶¶ 33, 38.) GM also objects to the subject interrogatories to the extent they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. The Court finds that the foregoing objections are not sufficiently supported by facts. (See Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 596-597 [burden to show preliminary facts supporting application of privilege not met where defendant failed to produce privilege log or identify any specific confidential communications]; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240(c)(1) [“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”].) Moreover, the arguments made in GM’s opposition pertaining to asserted trade secret material appear to be addressed to Plaintiffs’ request for production of documents, not Plaintiffs’ special interrogatories. (See, e.g., Opp’n at p. 6:17-20, “[m]oreover, the documents Plaintiffs seek in this breach of warranty case may relate to and contain confidential communications between GM employees and GM’s suppliers and/or sub-suppliers concerning technical, mechanical, and commercial issues and analyses.”)

Conclusion 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 41, 42, 44, and 45. The Court orders GM to provide further verified responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 41, 42, 44, and 45 of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 30 days of the date of this Order.¿¿ 

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this Order.¿¿ 

DATED:  March 7, 2023                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court