Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV41272, Date: 2024-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41272    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Carina Herrera Garrett and Randy T. Garrett filed this action against Defendant General Motors LLC arising from Plaintiffs’ purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle.

On June 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses.

MOTION DEFICIENCIES

For a motion to compel further, Plaintiffs must meet and confer with Defendant and file a Separate Statement or follow the Court’s alternative method of outlining the disputes.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)  This Department requires the parties to follow the procedures outlined in Exhibit A of Department 48’s Courtroom Information (available on the Court’s website) and file a joint statement.

The parties did not follow Department 48’s procedures for a joint statement.

DISCUSSION

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).)  The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

Plaintiffs seek further responses to six categories of documents: (1) the subject vehicle (RFP Nos. 1, 7); (2) Defendant’s knowledge and investigation of defects in similar vehicles (RFP Nos. 20-27, 32, 41, 44-51, 56, 65); (3) defects in similar vehicles (RFP Nos. 87, 100); (4) Defendant’s Song-Beverly and buyback policies and procedures (RFP Nos. 110, 111); (5) communications with third parties about defects in similar vehicles (RFP Nos. 125, 127, 128, 129, 131-135); and (6) other documents about the subject vehicle’s defects (RFP Nos. 139, 142, 143).

RFP Nos. 1, 7 requests documents relating to the subject vehicle.  Defendant stated that it would “comply in part” and produce selected documents.  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is GRANTED.

RFP Nos. 20-27, 32, 41, 44-51, 56, 65 seek Defendant’s knowledge and investigation of the same brake defects in the same make of vehicle.  Defendant responded that no documents would be produced.  These requests are limited to the same defects and vehicle alleged by Plaintiffs, and they are relevant to Defendant’s knowledge and willfulness.  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is GRANTED.

RFP Nos. 87, 100 seek executive summaries, summaries, reports, analyses, evaluations, or memoranda about problems with the same brake system and engine.  Defendant responded that no documents would be produced.  These requests are limited to the same defects and vehicle alleged by Plaintiffs, and they are relevant to Defendant’s knowledge and willfulness.  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is GRANTED.

RFP Nos. 110, 111 seek training materials for handling lemon law repurchase requests and manuals provided to authorized repair facilities.  Defendant responded that no documents would be produced.  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is GRANTED.

RFP Nos. 125, 127, 128, 129, 131-135 seek communications between Defendant and any government agency or entity regarding defects in the same brake system and engine, all Early Warning Reports submitted to NHTSA and all complaints about the same brake system and engine, and all TREAD submitted about the same brake system and engine.  Defendant responded that no documents would be produced.  These requests are relevant to Defendant’s knowledge and willfulness.  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is GRANTED.

RFP Nos. 139, 142 seek documents reflecting performance standards relating to the same brake system and engine.  These requests are limited to the same defects and vehicle alleged by Plaintiffs, and they are relevant to Defendant’s knowledge and willfulness.  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is GRANTED.

RFP No. 143 seeks all documents including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning Technical Service Bulletin 19-NA-032.  Defendant agreed to produce a copy of the bulletin.  The request for all documents about the bulletin is overbroad.  The motion is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED IN PART as set forth above.  Defendant is ordered to provide verified, supplemental responses within 10 days.

The requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 27th day of February 2024