Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 22-1277422, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

The Motion to Compel Further Responses and Documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, etc., as filed on 5/22/23 by Plaintiff Brian Pitman (“Plaintiff”) is GRANTED IN PART.

The Motion is directed to 16 Request for Production of Documents (each an “RFP”).  In its Opposition, defendant General Motors, LLC (“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., ¶¶ 2-4, Exs. A-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.   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].         

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.

Counsel for Plaintiff is to give notice.