Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV27056, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27056    Hearing Date: July 12, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     July 12, 2024                          TRIAL DATE: April 8, 2025

CASE:                         LILIANA D TREVINO vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC

CASE NO.:                 23STCV27056           

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE);

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff LILIANA D TREVINO

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC (“GM”)

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a lemon law action filed on November 3, 2023. Plaintiff purchased a 2018 Chevrolet Equinox which subsequently manifested defects in the body, powertrain, safety and electrical systems, braking system and the noise system.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to specific requests for production propounded to Defendant.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED.

            Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections to Requests for Production Nos. 16 through 21 within 30 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to specific requests for production propounded to Defendant.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when the court finds that: “(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the moving party to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) These facts must also be set forth in a separate statement filed by the moving party. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

Timeliness

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production must be served “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior 23STCVCourt¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

            Plaintiff propounded the discovery at issue on January 25, 2024. (Declaration of Nicolas Lee ISO Mot. ¶ 14; Exh. 4.) Defendant’s original responses were served electronically on February 26, 2024, without document production on December 5, 2023, and with verifications and initial document production on March 26, 2024. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16; Exhs. 5-6.) On May 6, 2024, Plaintiff sent GM a signed protective order. The following day, on May 7, 2024, GM supplemented its document production pursuant to the stipulation and entry of a protective order. (Kay Decl. ¶ 8; Exh. A.) Forty-five days from March 26, 2024, is May 28, 2024. The motion was filed on May 14, 2024. Therefore, this motion is timely.

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

            The Declaration of Nicolas Lee in support of the motion describes Plaintiff’s extensive efforts to informally resolve this dispute, including multiple meet-and-confer letters. (Lee Decl. ¶¶ 17-25.) Plaintiff has therefore satisfied his statutory meet-and-confer obligations.

Good Cause

            Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 16-21. These requests seek all documents relating to internal analysis or investigation into the “engine defect” (Lee Decl. Exh. 4. No. 16), communications regarding the “engine defect” (No. 17); decisions to issue notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins, and recalls concerning the “engine defect” (No. 18); customer complaints, reported failures, and warranty claims; (No. 19); failure rates as a result of the “engine defect” (No. 20); and fixes for the “engine defect.” (No. 21.) All requests pertain not only to the subject vehicle but to vehicles of the same year, make, and model. The requests define “engine defect to mean:

such defects which result in symptoms including, but not limited to: premature failure of engine; reduced engine power; engine malfunction; illumination of check engine light; excessive oil consumption; persistent oil low level; TSB 00-06-01-026Q; TSB 22-NA-224; TSB 20- NA-138; and any other concern identified in the repair history for the subject 2018 Chevrolet Equinox; Vehicle Identification Number 3GNAXJEV3JS571624

(Lee Decl. Exh. 4. p.3:14:20.)

            Evidence of similar defects in other vehicles are both relevant and admissible. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 153.) Admissible evidence is discoverable. (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117-18.) Documents regarding warranty complaints, service histories, and employee records concerning a defect in all affected vehicles, as well as documents regarding the manufacturer’s responses and instructions to cure that defect are discoverable. (See Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 971 [holding that the trial court’s approval of a discovery referee’s report and recommendation of sanctions for failure to produce documents of this nature relating to the subject defect in all affected vehicles was not an abuse of discretion].) Applying this well-settled precedent, the Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for these requests.

Defendant’s Responses

            In response to each request, Defendant asserted substantially identical boilerplate objections that the requests were not reasonably particularized, were overbroad and argumentative, that the definition of “engine defect” was not sufficiently specific, that the requests seek confidential or privileged information, that the request for electronically stored information is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and that the vehicle was purchased used and therefore not subject to the remedies of the Song-Beverly Act. (See, e.g., Lee Decl. Exh. 6. No. 16.) Defendant also specifically objected to Request No. 18 as seeking information regarding other customers which is irrelevant and violates their privacy rights. (Id. No. 18.)

            In opposition, Defendant first argues that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently meet and confer in good faith because Plaintiff’s letters lacked substantive reasoning or analysis.  (Opp’n at p.4.) The Court disagrees. (See Lee Decl. Exhs. 7-10.) Moreover, Defendant entirely fails to justify any of its objections beyond baldly asserting that the responses are overbroad and irrelevant, or, alternatively, that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the objections are invalid. However, the burden is on Defendant to justify any failure to fully respond to these requests. (See Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221.) Defendant has failed to do so. To the extent that any documents disclose trade secrets or other confidential material, Defendant may produce it subject to a protective order based on the format in the Superior Court’s sample protective order.  With that caveate, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further responses.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED.

            Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections to Requests for Production Nos. 16 through 21 within 30 days of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  July 12, 2024                                      ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.