Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 22-1239002, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Before the Court at present are five motions, as follows:

(1) the Motion filed by defendant General Motors, LLC (“GM”) for Relief from Waiver of Written Discovery Objections (“Motion 1” below);

(2) the Motion filed by Plaintiff Marcelo Caraveo (“Plaintiff”) to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents,  Set One (the “RFPs”) for RFP Nos. 8-10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21-22, 27, 29, 30-33, and 40, and for compliance with responses agreeing to produce (“Motion 2” below);

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) Set One, for RFA 14 and to deem the RFAs admitted (“Motion 3” below);

(4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”) Set One, for SROG Nos. 1-6, 21-24, 30-31, 33, 36, and 37-41 (“Motion 4” below);  and

(5) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form  Interrogatories (“FROGs”) Set One, for FROG Nos. 1.1, 2.8, 15.1, and 17.1 (“Motion 5” below).

Motion 1 is GRANTED. The Motion demonstrates that the responses at issue were served 2 days late due to a calendaring error, and that Plaintiff did not then note the error in subsequent meet and confer efforts. (Shugart Decl. at ROA 84, ¶¶ 5-7, 9-15.) Good cause for relief is thus shown here. Plaintiff has filed no Opposition to the Motion, and thus has not attempted to show that any prejudice would result from providing the requested relief. The Motion for Relief from Waiver, etc.  is therefore GRANTED.

Motions 2-5 below, to the extent based on such waiver, are thus moot.

Motion 2 is GRANTED IN PART.  The Motion as directed to the verification is DENIED, as Plaintiff has failed to show that it did not adequately comport with C.C.P. § 2015.5.

The Motion is otherwise directed to 16 RFPs, as listed above. In its Opposition, GM asserts that it is prepared to produce several categories of additional documents, subject to entry of a Protective Order (“PO”).  But the reply shows that the parties already agreed upon and executed a proposed PO. (Le Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4, Ex. B.) GM must thus produce the materials it identified in its Opposition and submit that proposed PO if it requests entry thereof.

On the merits, of the 16 RFPs at issue here, Plaintiff has shown that some but not all of the materials at issue should be produced.

On balance, the Court finds that for the specific vehicle at issue, GM must produce documents related to the warranty work requested, including any repair instruction, bulletin or diagnostic/repair procedure identified therein, and communications related thereto.  It must also produce any warranty policy or procedure manuals or claim handling manuals for warranty or Lemon Law claims for the period between Plaintiff’s purchase and the commencement of this action, a list of any customer complaints for vehicles purchased in California for the same vehicle year, make and model, for complaints substantially similar to those alleged here [but with consumer-specific information redacted], and any TSBs or recall notices for vehicles sold in California for the same vehicle year, make and model.

The Motion is therefore DENIED for RFPs 8-10, 13 and 40, as based on what has been shown here, GM’s proprietary interests therein outweigh Plaintiff’s claimed need for such materials.  

But the Motion is GRANTED IN PART, as follows:

(a)      for RFPs 15, 17 and 19 [as to invoices for and records of repairs or attempts to repair Plaintiff’s vehicle];

(b)      for RFPs 21 and 22 [as to non-privileged communications concerning Plaintiff’s vehicle];

(c)      for RFP 27 [as to information provided to dealerships regarding repairs for any of the alleged “defects” in Plaintiff’s vehicle];

(d)      for RFP 29 [as to TSBs or recall notices for vehicles sold in California for the same year, make, and model];

(e)      for RFPs 30-31 [as to written warranty policy or procedure manuals or claim handling manuals for Lemon Law claims or warranty claims in California, for the period between Plaintiff’s purchase and the commencement of this action]; and

(f)      for RFPs 32-33 [as to customer complaints for vehicles purchased in California for the same vehicle year, make and model, for complaints substantially similar to those alleged here, but with consumer-specific information redacted].         

Motion 3 is GRANTED IN PART.  The Motion as directed to the verification is DENIED, as Plaintiff has failed to show that it did not adequately comport with C.C.P. § 2015.5. 

On the merits, the Motion is directed only to RFA 14.  The Separate Statements submitted with the Motion and the Opposition differ as to what GM’s response was, but ROA 56 at Ex. 3 demonstrates that Plaintiff’s version is correct. The actual response is deficient, as it fails to respond to the RFA as posed. The Motion is therefore GRANTED as to RFA 14. The balance of the Motion is DENIED for the reasons addressed above.

Motion 4 is GRANTED IN PART.  The Motion as directed to the verification is DENIED, as Plaintiff has failed to show that it did not adequately comport with C.C.P. § 2015.5.

The Motion is GRANTED as to SROGs 1-6, 23, 24, 30, 31, 33 and 36. SROGs 1-6 seek information about GM’s asserted defenses. Although GM can point to specific documents it has produced for SROGs 3 and 6, the response must be complete, and merely pointing to such documents does not suffice for Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5.

For SROGs 23, 24, 30 and 31, GM’s responses are deficient. For No. 23, if it is not making any such claim, it must so state. For Nos. 24, 30 and 31, GM must meaningfully respond.

For SROGs 33 and 36, GM responded by pointing to specific documents, but failed to actually answer the questions posed, and did not show in the Opposition that the documents identified provide the requested information.

The Motion as to SROGs 21, 22, and 37-41 is DENIED. For SROGs 21 and 22, the requests appear overbroad and lack adequate specificity, while Nos. 37-41 essentially duplicate Nos. 1-5.

Motion 5 is GRANTED IN PART.  The Motion as directed to the verification is DENIED, as Plaintiff has failed to show that it did not adequately comport with C.C.P. § 2015.5. 

On the merits, for FROG Nos. 1.1, 15.1, and 17.1 as directed to RFA 14, each response is incomplete and lacking in adequate specificity.  The Motion is therefore GRANTED for FROG Nos. 1.1, 15.1, and 17.1 as directed to RFA 14. The Motion is DENIED as to FROG 2.8, as Plaintiff has not shown why the response is insufficient given the context here. 

For Motions 2-5, GM is to provide supplemental responses which comport with the foregoing, and to the extent not already produced, a corresponding supplemental production, within 20 days after service of notice of this ruling. GM must also re-produce any responsive documents that could not be opened by counsel for Plaintiff in a format which allows Plaintiff’s counsel to view them.

Counsel for Plaintiff is to give notice of these rulings