Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 22STCV00229, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

On April 8, 2024, Plaintiffs Mihran Hannesyan and Hannesyan Mihran dba My Ways Limousine filed a motion to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors LLC’s personal most knowledgeable with production of documents.

Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses and production of documents for Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 13, 18, 22, 23, 25, 31, 39, 56, 58, 64, 72, 84, 96, 108, 110, 111, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, and 134. (See Motion at p. 1.) Plaintiff also seeks to compel Defendant’s PMK testimony on Subject Nos. 1-35, for which Defendant provided objections.

The Court finds under Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.020, subdivision (b) that the sequence and timing of discovery in this matter should be the subject of management by the Court in the interests of justice pending a future status conference.

Accordingly, the Court issues a Discovery Minute Order (Song-Beverly Litigation Only). All discovery in this action shall be governed by this order effective June 6, 2024.

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.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

a. Absent written agreement of the parties to the contrary, any formal discovery propounded and currently pending or outstanding by a party in this matter prior to the date of this Order is stayed pending further order of the Court.

b. The Court finds under CCP § 2019.020(b) that the sequence and timing of discovery in this matter should be the subject of management by the Court in the interests of justice pending a future status conference, given the nature of the allegations in the Complaint and the defenses raised in the Answer.

c. A party may seek to modify and/or delete any of these orders, via noticed motion, upon showing of good cause.

2. Production of Documents: Within 30 days of this order, both Plaintiff and Defendant shall provide copies of the following documents that are in their respective possession, custody, and/or control, to the opposing side(s):

a. Purchase or lease contracts concerning the subject vehicle, including any associated documents reflecting original equipment manufacturer or aftermarket equipment installed at the dealership, extended limited warranties or service contracts, and any other writings signed by Plaintiff at the point of sale.

b. Work orders, repair orders, and invoices (including accounting and warranty versions) for any maintenance, service, and repair activity concerning the subject vehicle.

c. Rental car or loaner agreements regarding alternate transportation provided during service or repair visits concerning the subject vehicle.

d. Records of communications with dealer personnel and/or factory representatives and Defendant’s call center or customer assistance personnel concerning the subject vehicle.

e. Warranty claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the subject vehicle.

f. Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual or similar policies or claim-handling procedures published by Defendant from the date the subject vehicle was purchased or leased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

g. Defendant’s written statements of policy and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase or replacement pursuant to “Lemon Law” claims, including ones brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date the subject vehicle was purchased or leased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

h. A list or compilation of customer complaints in Defendant’s electronically stored information database that are substantially similar to the alleged defects claimed by Plaintiff, in vehicles for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle. A substantially similar customer complaint would be the same nature of reported symptom, malfunction, dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem as the description listed in any work order or repair order for the subject vehicle, other than routine or scheduled maintenance items. The list provided by Defendant may be in a chart or spreadsheet format, and it shall include the Vehicle Identification Number (“VIN”), date of repair visit, dealership or other reporting location, and text of the other customers’ reported complaint, but it shall not include the other customers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, or other personal identifying information.

i. Technical Service Bulletins and Recall Notices for vehicles of the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle.

j. Copies of any repair instruction, bulletin, or other diagnostic/repair procedure identified in any of the repair order/invoice records for the subject vehicle.

k. Receipts or other written evidence supporting any incidental or consequential damages claimed by Plaintiff.

If a party believes any of this information should be subject to a protective order, that party shall serve and file a proposed protective order within 5 days of this order and the parties shall meet and confer as to agreeable language for the same. The default will be the standard Protective Order provided by the LASC on its website.

The information may be provided to the opposing party in electronic form as a PDF at the option of the producing party.

Plaintiff and Defendant shall serve verifications with the documents they produce.

Any additional requests for documents may only be propounded by court order obtained by stipulation or noticed motion upon showing of good cause.

3. Interrogatories: Within the time limits allowed by law, both Plaintiff and Defendant may each propound one set of Judicial Council Form Interrogatories and one set of a maximum of 35 Special Interrogatories. Any additional special interrogatories may be propounded only by a court order obtained by stipulation or by noticed motion upon showing of good cause.

4. Depositions: Within the time limits allowed by law, Defendant may depose Plaintiff, and Plaintiff may depose the person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) of Defendant on up to 5 categories of information, plus a deposition of the PMK as to why the subject vehicle was not repurchased, in addition to depositions of any experts identified by the parties, after a formal demand and exchange of expert witness information, per CCP § 2034. Parties shall meet and confer about whether there is a need to take any additional depositions. Any additional depositions may only be noticed and taken by a court order obtained by stipulation or noticed motion upon a showing of good cause.

If a deponent resides out of state, the deposition may be taken by video conference or telephone. The parties will not be required to travel to California, and the attorneys will not be required to travel out of state.

5. Vehicle Inspection: Within the time limits allowed by law, the subject vehicle may be inspected by the parties at a mutually agreeable time and place. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the vehicle inspection (“VI”) process shall be as follows:

a. Defendant shall show Plaintiff’s representative proof of insurance for the person/company who will be road testing the subject vehicle;

b. The defense VI shall commence at 8:00 a.m. at an authorized service and repair facility closest to Plaintiff’s residence, and may continue until no later than 5:00 p.m. that same day;

c. Plaintiff shall deliver the vehicle to the noticed place of inspection. If the subject vehicle has a dead battery, Plaintiff’s counsel shall notify Defendant’s counsel at least one court day before the VI, and the VI shall proceed with Defendant paying for the tow or jump start to the place of inspection and taking reasonable steps to retrieve stored diagnostic codes and other onboard data before the battery is recharged or replaced.

d. Defendant shall provide Plaintiff’s representative with duplicate copies of all paper and electronic documents created during and because of the VI, such as test results, the stored codes in the vehicle’s internal network or in its control units, alignment sheets, etc.;

e. If the subject vehicle is in then-current use by Plaintiff, and if requested in writing within a reasonable time prior to the VI, Plaintiff shall be provided a loaner or rental vehicle paid for by Defendant for the duration of the VI, conditioned on Plaintiff providing standard rental car disclosures such as proof of a current driver’s license and insurance coverage, and with Plaintiff responsible for the loaner vehicle’s fuel. The loaner vehicle need not be the same model or type as the subject vehicle unless Plaintiff agrees to pay for an upgrade;

f. Defendant shall be permitted to run tests of relevant electronic control units (“ECUs”) and components, conditioned on Defendant maintaining, downloading, or printing out stored data on the existing condition or historical information stored in an ECU; and

g. Plaintiff’s representative is permitted to conduct video and audio recording of the VI.