Judge Thomas D. Long, Case 21STCV31980 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

On August 39, 2021, Plaintiff Araceli Gutierrez filed this action against Defendant General Motors LLC for breach of warranties arising from the purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle.

On October 12, 2021, Plaintiff propounded Request for Production, Set One, on Defendant. (Bohloul Decl., Ex. C.) Plaintiff received Defendant’s unverified responses on November 15, 2021. (Bohloul Decl., Ex. E.) After meeting and conferring via letter, on December 21, 2021, Defendant signed a Joint Statement of Discovery in Dispute that indicated that it would provide code-compliant supplemental production. (Bohloul Decl., Ex. K.)

On January 21, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Statement of Discovery in Dispute that indicated that Defendant would provide supplemental production and “the parties have come to a full resolution as to all items in dispute.” On March 9, 2022, GM served supplemental responses, and on March 14, 2022, it served its verifications. (Bohloul Decl., Ex. N; Major Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff sent further letters to Defendant regarding the perceived inadequacy of production. (Bohloul Decl. ¶¶ 16-19.)

On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses. Plaintiff seeks further responses and production for Request For Production Nos. 5, 7, 28, 33, and 40-44. Defendant argues that it has complied with the January 21, 2022 Joint Statement of Discovery in Dispute and the motion is moot.

A party may move to compel a further response to a demand for production of documents if the demanding party deems that the statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

For RFP Nos. 5, 7, 28, and 33, Defendant’s supplemental responses state that Defendant has produced all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control, and it refers Plaintiff to specific documents by Bates number. Plaintiff contends that the referenced documents are not responsive and that Defendant has failed to produce all documents. (Reply at p. 2.) But Defendant has provided code-compliant responses stating that they produced all responsive documents, and the Court cannot order them to produce what does not exist.

RFP No. 40 requests “[a] current copy of Recall N192273510 and any past versions, updated versions and DOCUMENTS discussing any contemplated future updates.” RFP No. 42 requests “[a] current copy of Product Safety Recall N192270600 and any past versions, updated versions and DOCUMENTS discussing any contemplated future updates.” Defendant objected on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. Defendant’s supplemental response states that it “will comply in part and produce a copy of those recall bulletins for every field action it issued for the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including Recall N192273510, as identified in the image below.” The request is overbroad and partially irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims. All documents contemplating future updates to recalls is beyond the scope of whether Plaintiff’s vehicle was nonconforming and whether Defendant breached warranties. The documents that Defendant agreed to produce are sufficient.

RFP No. 41 requests “[a]ll DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to, electronic mails, internal investigations, electronically stored information, internal reports, PowerPoint slideshows and internal analyses which contributed to the issuance of Recall N192273510, any past versions and its revisions.” RFP No. 43 seeks the same for Product Safety Recall N192270600. Defendant provided the same response as with RFP No. 40. The request is overbroad, and Plaintiff has not shown the relevance of these documents to her claims that Defendant breached the warranties and did not timely make the vehicle conform to the warranties.

RFP No. 44 requests “[a]ll DOCUMENTS from YOUR technical hotline that refer, relate to or concern communications between YOU and YOUR authorized repair facilities regarding diagnosis and/or repairs involving the SUBJECT VEHICLE at any time.” Defendant’s supplemental response stated that it has produced all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control, and it referred Plaintiff to specific documents by Bates number. Plaintiff contends that the referenced documents do not relate to the subject vehicle. (Reply at pp. 2-3.) But Defendant has provided code-compliant responses stating that they produced all responsive documents.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court