Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV04410, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04410    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On February 28, 2023, Plaintiff Jose Octavio Diaz Munoz filed this action against Defendant General Motors LLC arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle.

On November 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses.

MOTION DEFICIENCIES

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.

The parties did not follow Department 48’s procedures for a joint statement.

DISCUSSION

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. 13-16 and 34-35.  These RFPs request documents involving Defendant’s repurchases of the same vehicle with the same defects, owner complaints about the same defects in the same vehicle, technical service bulletins issued for the same vehicle, and recalls issued for the same vehicle.  These requests are limited to the same defects and vehicle alleged by Plaintiff, and they are relevant to Defendant’s knowledge and willfulness. 

For some RFPs, Defendant provided only objections.  For other RFPs, Defendant stated that it would “comply in part” and produce selected documents.  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.  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 19th day of March 2024