Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV34781, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34781    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff John W. Sandoval filed this action against Defendant General Motors LLC arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle.

On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff served Request for Production of Documents on Defendant.  (Yashar Decl. ¶ 2.)  On April 24, 2023, Defendant served responses, which Plaintiff deemed insufficient.  (Yashar Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)  After attempting to meet and confer (see Yashar Decl. ¶¶ 4-5), Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses on June 5, 2023.

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).)  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.

Additionally, for a motion to compel further, Plaintiff 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.  Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration makes clear that they did not attempt to follow Department 48’s procedures for a joint statement.

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.  The motion is GRANTED IN PART: 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 25th day of January 2024