Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV39144, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39144    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On December 16, 2022, Plaintiffs Josefina Diaz and Jose Aguilera filed this action against Defendant General Motors LLC arising from Plaintiffs’ purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle.

On February 23, 2023, Plaintiffs served Request for Production of Documents on Defendant.  (Thomas Decl. ¶ 5.)  On March 27, 2023, Defendant served responses, which Plaintiffs deemed insufficient.  (Thomas Decl. ¶ 6.)  After attempting to meet and confer (see Thomas Decl. ¶¶ 10-16, 18, 21-22), Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses on August 30, 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).)  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).)  Plaintiffs’ filings do not comply with these requirements.  If Plaintiffs continue to electronically file noncompliant documents, the Court may strike the filings or issue sanctions.

Additionally, 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.  Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration makes clear that Defendant did not respond and follow Department 48’s procedures for a joint statement.  (Thomas Decl. ¶¶ 21-22.)

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 three categories of documents: (1) documents relating to general policies and procedures relied upon when handling vehicle repurchase or replacement requests and calculating repurchase offers (RFP Nos. 16, 19-32); (2) documents that would explain the various codes used as a shorthand in the repair orders and other internal documents produced by Defendant (RFP Nos. 37-41); and (3) documents showing Defendant’s handling of similarly situated consumers’ complaints concerning the same problems, with the same year, make, and model of vehicle as Plaintiffs’ vehicle (RFP Nos. 45-46).

RFP Nos. 16, 19-32 request all warranty claims policy and procedure manual(s) from 2021 to the present; documents—including training materials, scripts, and flow charts—regarding turn-around time and procedures for evaluating and responding to complaints, repair presentations, refund requests, and repurchases regarding Defendant’s vehicles manufactured or distributed since 2021; and documents related to determining Defendant’s meanings of “non-conformity,” “substantial impairment,” and “reasonable number of repair attempts.”  Defendant’s objections for overbreadth and relevance are sustained in part.  These documents are relevant to the warranties, defects, and repairs alleged by Plaintiffs and whether Defendant acted willfully, but the requests go beyond Plaintiffs’ allegedly defective vehicle, and Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for documents relating to completely different makes and models.  Defendant’s other objections are overruled.  The motion is GRANTED IN PART.  Defendant must produce supplemental responses relating to the same make and model as Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

RFP Nos. 37-41 request documents to identify all of Defendant’s OBDII codes, vehicle symptom codes, vehicle component repair codes, and labor operation codes for the same year, make, and model as Plaintiffs’ vehicle.  Plaintiffs explain in their Reply that these codes “are essential to generally interpreting the repair orders and internal GM documents produced in this litigation.”  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is GRANTED.

RFP Nos. 45-46 request all documents evidencing complaints by owners and warranty repairs of the 2017 Chevrolet Suburban with the same complaints that Plaintiffs had.  These requests are relevant to Plaintiffs’ allegations of Defendant’s knowledge and willful failure to repair or replace the vehicle.  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED IN PART as set forth above.  Defendant is ordered to provide verified, supplemental responses within 30 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 22nd day of February 2024