Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV26748, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26748    Hearing Date: October 5, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 17, 2022, Plaintiff Heliodoro Ibarra filed this action against Defendant General Motors LLC arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle.

On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff served Request for Production of Documents on Defendant.  (Yashar Decl. ¶ 4.)  On January 24, 2023, Defendant served responses, which Plaintiff deemed insufficient.  (Yashar Decl. ¶ 6.)  After attempting to meet and confer (Yashar Decl. ¶¶ 7-10), Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses on March 10, 2023.

E-FILING DEFICIENCIES

Under the Court’s First Amended General Order for electronic filing, “[e]lectronic documents must be electronically filed in PDF, text searchable format when technologically feasible without impairment of the document’s image.” (General Order No. 2019-GEN-014-00, at ¶ 6(a).)  Additionally, the table of contents and all attachments, including exhibits, must be bookmarked.  (General Order No. 2019-GEN-014-00, at ¶¶ 6(b)-(d); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4).)

Plaintiff’s filings do not comply with these requirements.  If Plaintiff continues to electronically file noncompliant documents, the Court may strike the filings or issue sanctions.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

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).)

Plaintiff seeks further responses to RFP Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 34, and 35.

RFP No. 13 requests all documents identifying Defendant’s repurchases of other vehicles of the same make and model that contained the same alleged defects.  RFP No. 14 requests all documents related to similar complaints about defects by owners of those vehicles, and RFP No. 16 requests all documents showing the number of owners with complaints.  RFP No. 15 requests all documents in which owners of similar vehicles reported the same defects.  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  These documents are relevant to the defects and repairs alleged by Plaintiff, Defendant’s knowledge thereof, and Defendant’s willful failure to repair or repurchase the vehicle.  The motion is GRANTED.

RFP Nos. 34 and 35 requests all documents related to technical service bulletins and recalls issued for the same vehicle.  For RFP No. 34, Defendant agreed to produce “a list of technical service bulletins (‘TSBs’) and information service bulletins (‘ISBs’) for vehicles of the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. After it has produced a list of TSBs and ISBs, GM will – at Plaintiff’s request – search for and produce, if located, copies of a reasonable number of TSBs and ISBs, if any, that Plaintiff has identified as relevant to the conditions alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.”  For RFP No. 35, Defendant agreed to produce copies of bulletins for every field action, including any recalls, it issued for Plaintiff’s vehicle, as identified in the Global Warranty History Report.  It is not clear what else Plaintiff wants or why he believes this is insufficient.  The motion contains no argument.  In the Joint Statement, Plaintiff sets forth boilerplate law and no specific argument.  However, counsel’s declaration states that Defendant did not actually produce any documents with its January 24, 2023 responses.  The motion is GRANTED to that extent: Defendant must produce the documents that it agreed to produce.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED IN PART as set forth above.  Defendant is ordered to provide verified, supplemental responses within 30 days.

The request for sanctions is 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 5th day of October 2023