Judge Thomas D. Long, Case 22STCV01256 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

On January 12, 2022, Plaintiffs Victor Coronado and Philip Dimaggio filed this action against Defendant General Motors LLC for breach of warranties arising from the lease of an allegedly defective vehicle.

On February 24, 2022, Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable (“PMK”). On March 3, 2022, Defendant served objections. After meeting and conferring, the parties participated in an informal discovery conference on August 12, 2022.

On April 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK with production of documents.

If a party or an officer, director, managing agent, employee of a party, or person designated as the person most qualified to testify fails to appear for examination or produce documents, the demanding party may move to compel attendance, testimony, and production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

A. The Motion is Denied as Moot for Repair Information (Category Nos. 1, 11, 12; Document Request Nos. 7-8).

Category No. 1 requests a witness on “All repairs to the Subject Vehicle (“Subject Vehicle” or “Vehicle” shall be defined as the 2018 Chevrolet Traverse, VIN 1GNERKKW3JJ114232, that is the subject of this lawsuit), including all attempts to diagnose its problems and the time spent diagnosing its problems.” Category No. 11 requests a witness on “All information regarding Defendant’s repair procedures consulted and followed during the completion of repairs for the Subject Vehicle.” Category No. 12 requests a witness on “All information regarding diagnostic procedures consulted and followed while diagnosing Plaintiffs’ concerns for the Subject Vehicle.”

Document Request No. 7 seeks “All documents regarding Defendant’s repair procedures consulted and followed during the completion of repairs for the Subject Vehicle.” Document Request No. 8 seeks “All documents regarding diagnostic procedures consulted and followed while diagnosing Plaintiffs’ concerns for the Subject Vehicle.”

Defendant objected to these categories as overly broad and unduly burdensome because they seek information regarding “all repairs” for the Subject Vehicle, regardless of who performed them. For the deposition categories, it agreed to produce a witness to testify about the identified repair history of the Subject Vehicle and any repair orders for the Subject Vehicle that Defendant may have obtained from GM-authorized dealerships who may have serviced, maintained, or repaired the Subject Vehicle. For the document requests, Defendant referred Plaintiffs to already-produced documents.

As Plaintiffs note, dealerships are agents of the manufacturer, and Defendant must make a good-faith effort to obtain the relevant information from the authorized dealerships. It has already agreed to produce a witness to testify about this information and referred Plaintiffs to the responsive documents produced in response to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production.

B. The Motion is Granted in Part for Some TSB Information (Category Nos. 2-4; Document Request No. 3).

Category No. 2 requests a witness on “All Technical Service Bulletins applicable to the Subject Vehicle, including those superseded.” Category No. 3 requests a witness on “Why these Technical Service Bulletins were issued.” Category No. 4 requests a witness on “The process by which a Technical Service Bulletin is issued including but not limited to all criteria, data, or information relied upon.”

Document Request No. 3 seeks “All Technical Service Bulletins applicable to the Subject Vehicle, including those superseded.”

Defendant objects to Category No. 2 as overly broad and unduly burdensome. It agreed to produce a witness on any warranty repairs performed on the Subject Vehicle pursuant to a TSB, as well as any repair orders for the Subject Vehicle that GM may have obtained from GM-authorized dealerships who may have serviced, maintained, or repaired the Subject Vehicle. For Category Nos. 3-4 and Document Request No. 3, Defendant agreed to produce a list of all TSBs issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle, from which Plaintiffs may identify specific TSBs.

The Complaint alleges “defects, malfunctions, misadjustments, and/or nonconformities related to: (a) distorted read view camera; (b) shifting issues caused by shift to park failure message on four (4) separate occasions; (c) no remote detected message on two (2) separate occasions; (d) defective passenger seat trim coming off on two (2) separate occasions; ( e) defective windshield strip coming off; (f) air conditioning setting switching off on its own; (g) illumination of the “Service Parking Brake” light on three (3) separate occasions; (h) illumination of the “Stabilitrak” warning light; and (i) acceleration issues.” (FAC ¶ 11.) A request for information about all TSBs applicable to the Subject Vehicle is overbroad, as it may include TSBs for issues not alleged and defects not experienced by Plaintiff. However, Defendant’s limitation is too narrow, as there could be relevant TSBs for which a warranty repair was not performed.

The motion to compel is granted in part, only for TSBs related to the defects alleged in the Complaint.

C. The Motion is Denied for Information About Recalls (Category Nos. 5, 6, 21, 22; Document Request Nos. 4, 17-18).

Category No. 5 requests a witness on “All recalls applicable to the Subject Vehicle, including those superseded.” Category No. 6 requests a witness on “Why these recalls were issued.” Category No. 21 requests a witness on “Any and all information that led to the issuance of Recall 17448, including but not limited to the number of customer complaints, amounts paid for repairs, technical hotline inquiries, and any and all data/information relied upon or utilized by GM in the issuance and/or publication of the recall.” Category No. 22 requests a witness on “Any and all information that led to the issuance of Recall N192266190, including but not limited to the number of customer complaints, amounts paid for repairs, technical hotline inquiries, and any and all data/information relied upon or utilized by GM in the issuance and/or publication of the recall.”

Document Request No. 4 seeks “All recalls applicable to the Subject Vehicle, including those superseded.” Document Request No. 17 seeks “All documents led to the issuance of Recall 17448, including but not limited to the number of customer complaints, amounts paid for repairs, technical hotline inquiries, and any and all data/information relied upon or utilized by GM in the issuance and/or publication of the recall.” Document Request No. 18 seeks “All documents led to the issuance of Recall N192266190, including but not limited to the number of customer complaints, amounts paid for repairs, technical hotline inquiries, and any and all data/information relied upon or utilized by GM in the issuance and/or publication of the recall.”

Defendant stated that no recall has been issued for the Subject Vehicle and agreed to produce a witness to testify about the Subject Vehicle’s repair history in Response to Category No. 1. The additional information about Recall 17448 and Recall N192266190 is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Because Defendant states that no recall has been issued for the Subject Vehicle, no further response is required. The motion is denied as to Category Nos. 5, 6, 21, 22.

For Document Request No. 4, Defendant referred Plaintiffs “to the bulletins for every field action, including recalls, if any, it issued for the Subject Vehicle, as reflected in GM’s response to Category No. 5, produced in Response to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production.” This is a complete response. For Document Request Nos. 17-18, Defendant agreed to produce the bulletins for those recalls. Plaintiffs have not shown the relevance of the rest of the overbroad requests. The motion is denied for Document Request Nos. 4, 17-18.

D. The Motion is Granted in Part for Repurchase Information (Category Nos. 7, 8).

Category No. 7 requests a witness on “Defendant’s refusal to repurchase Plaintiffs’ Vehicle.” Category No. 8 requests a witness on “Defendant’s policies and procedures for evaluating whether a vehicle qualifies for repurchase or replacement under California Lemon Law in place at the time of Plaintiffs’ contact, as well as current ones.”

Document Request No. 5 seeks “All documents reflecting Defendant’s investigation into whether Plaintiffs’ Vehicle should be repurchased.” Document Request No. 6 seeks “All documents reflecting Defendant’s policies and procedures for evaluating, and/or investigating whether a vehicle qualifies for repurchase or replacement under California Lemon Law in place at the time of Plaintiffs’ contact, as well as current ones.”

For Category No. 7 and Document Request Nos. 5-6, Defendant agreed to produce a witness to testify about, and referred Plaintiffs to documents already produced regarding, (i) the Subject Vehicle’s repair history in GM’s Response to Category No. 1, (ii) any repair orders for the Subject Vehicle that GM may have obtained from GM-authorized dealership(s) who may have serviced, maintained, or repaired the Subject Vehicle, (iii) the Service Request Activity Report for SR#9-6619830025, and (iv) the corresponding repurchase assessment for the Subject Vehicle, if any.

For Category No. 8 and Document Request No. 6, Defendant objected that it was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek privileged information. The request for current policies is not relevant to the decision of whether to repurchase Plaintiffs’ vehicle in the past.

The motion is granted in part for Category Nos. 7-8 and Document Request Nos. 5-6 as to non-privileged information about Defendant’s refusal to repurchase Plaintiffs’ vehicle Defendant’s policies and procedures for evaluating whether a vehicle qualifies for repurchase or replacement under California Lemon Law in place at the time of Plaintiffs’ contact. For any privileged information, Defendant is to produce a privilege log.

E. The Motion is Denied as Moot for Warranty Information (Category Nos. 9, 10).

Category No. 9 requests a witness on “Defendant’s warranty policies and procedures in place at the time from Plaintiffs’ purchase of the Subject Vehicle to the filing of this lawsuit governing or pertaining to the Subject Vehicle, repairs, and warranty repairs reimbursement.” Category No. 10 requests a witness on “All warranties that accompanied Plaintiffs’ Vehicle at the time of purchase.”

Defendant agreed to produce a witness to testify about (i) the Subject Vehicle’s repair history in Defendant’s Response to Category No. 1, including the routine maintenance and warranty reimbursement claims that GM honored for the Subject Vehicle, and (ii) the New Vehicle Limited Warranty that Defendant issued for the Subject Vehicle.

The New Vehicle Limited Warranty is the only warranty expressly identified in the complaint. (Complaint ¶ 8.) Defendant agreed to produce a witness on this warranty. The motion to compel is denied as moot.

F. The Motion is Granted for Information About Witnesses (Category Nos. 13-20; Document Request Nos. 9-11, 13-16).

Category No. 13 requests a witness on “The full names and addresses of anyone involved with the investigation and/or subsequent denial to repurchase the Subject Vehicle.” Category No. 14 requests a witness on “The name of those individuals’ employer.” Category No. 15 requests a witness on “The identity of all individuals responsible for ensuring that vehicles are repurchased under the California Lemon Law at the time of Plaintiffs’ contact and currently with GM, including all managers and supervisors.” Category No. 16 requests a witness on “All agreements in place, including but not limited to indemnity agreements, service agreements, and operating agreements for the production of these individuals at deposition.” Category No. 17 requests a witness on Defendant’s “ability to produce any of these individuals for deposition.” Category No. 18 requests a witness on Defendant’s “ability to produce Autumn, the customer service representative associated with the Case #9-6619830025 for deposition,” Category No. 19 requests a witness on Autumn’s full name and address, and Category No. 20 requests a witness on the full name and address of Autumn’s employer.

Document Request No. 9 seeks “All documents identifying anyone involved with the investigation and/or subsequent denial to repurchase the subject vehicle, including their names and addresses.” Document Request No. 10 seeks “All documents identifying those individuals’ employer.” Document Request No. 11 seeks “All documents identifying any and all individuals responsible for ensuring that vehicles are repurchased under California Lemon Law at the time of Plaintiffs’ contact and currently with GM, including all managers and supervisors.” Document Request No. 13 seeks “All documents regarding your ability to produce any of these individuals for deposition.” Document Request No. 14 seeks “All documents regarding your ability to produce Autumn, the customer service representative associated with Case #9-6619830025, for deposition,” Document Request No. 15 seeks “All documents reflecting the full name and address of Autumn,” and Document Request No. 16 seeks “All documents reflecting the full name and address of Autumn’s employer.”

Defendant objected to these categories “to the extent it seeks confidential information about GM’s agreements with non-parties to this lawsuit, and to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the common-interest privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection.” It agreed to produce a witness to testify about the Service Request Activity Report for SR#9-6619830025 and the corresponding repurchase assessment for the Subject Vehicle, and it referred Plaintiffs to specific documents produced in response to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production.

Information regarding the individuals who were involved in the investigation and repurchase decision could lead to relevant information regarding whether Defendant breached its duties under the warranties and whether any breach was willful.

G. The Motion is Denied for Third-Party Witnesses’ Agreements (Document Request No. 12).

Document Request No. 12 seeks “All documents regarding agreements in place, including but not limited to indemnity agreements, service agreements, and operating agreements for the production of these individuals [from Document Request Nos. 9-11] at deposition.”

This request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information about third parties. The motion is denied.

H. The Motion is Granted for Documents Related to the Subject Vehicle (Document Request Nos. 1-2).

Document Request No. 1 seeks “All documents related to the Subject Vehicle, including but not limited to the entire warranty history and all warranties that accompanied Plaintiffs’ Vehicle at the time of purchase.” Document Request No. 2 seeks “All documents regarding repairs made to the Subject Vehicle, including but not limited to, the cost of these repairs, the time spent completing these repairs and what was actually done to the Subject Vehicle to diagnose and repair Plaintiffs’ concerns.”

Defendant stated it would “comply in part” and referred Plaintiffs to (i) the Global Warranty History Report for the Subject Vehicle, (ii) any repair orders for the Subject Vehicle that GM may have obtained from GM-authorized dealership(s) who may have serviced, maintained, or repaired the Subject Vehicle and (iii) a copy of the New Vehicle Limited Warranty that GM issued for the Subject Vehicle produced in response to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production.

Defendant must comply in full, not in part, and it has not provided a valid excuse for its partial compliance. The motion is granted for these requests.

The motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above. Defendant must produce its PMK for deposition with the documents within 30 days.

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