Judge Timothy B. Taylor, Case 37-2022-00024713-CU-BC-CTL 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2022-00024713-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 12, 2023

10/13/2023 01:30:00 PM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00024713-CU-BC-CTL ALVAREZ AND CORONA VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 07/14/2023

Tentative Ruling on Discovery Motion Alvarez and Corona v. GM, Case No. 2022-24713 Oct. 13, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a Song-Beverly 'lemon law' case involving a new 2021 Chevrolet Silverado purchased by plaintiffs in September of that year. They allege defects in the 'steering, engine, electrical, and emission system.' The complaint was filed in June of 2022. GM answered in September of 2022. ROA 13.

At a due-course CMC, the court set the case for trial in September of 2023. ROA 20-24. When the case was called for a TRC September 1, however, the parties had not prepared a Joint Trial Readiness Report and were not ready for trial. So another CMC had to be set. ROA 34-36.

Presently, plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to a document demand. ROA 25-28. GM filed opposition.* ROA 39-40. Plaintiff filed reply. ROA 42. The court has reviewed the papers and no further submissions are authorized in connection with this motion.** 2. Applicable Standards.

A. A civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.

'[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.

'Among the myriad purposes of the civil discovery statutes is to safeguard against surprise and gamesmanship, and to prevent delay.' Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 306.

B. There are two statutes that concern themselves with motions to compel in the context of document requests. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 – the statute at issue here – permits a party to move to compel a further response to an inspection demand when: (1) the responding party's response is incomplete, (2) a claim that the responding party cannot comply is defective, or (3) an objection is defective. Conversely, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320 deals with situations where the Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2994708 62 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ALVAREZ AND CORONA VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] 37-2022-00024713-CU-BC-CTL responding party files a response to an inspection demand and then fails to permit the inspection.

C. 'A central purpose of the Discovery Act was to keep the trial courts out of the business of refereeing day-to-day discovery by requiring parties to conduct discovery and resolve disputes with minimal judicial involvement.' Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 253-54. The court's determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate involves the exercise of discretion. Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431. Among the factors the court should consider are the history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, and the prospects for success. Id. A trial judge's perceptions on such matters, inherently factual in nature at least in part, must not be lightly disturbed. Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1012-13.

3. Discussion and Rulings.

The motion to compel further responses is granted in part and denied in part.

A. As an initial matter, the court notes that plaintiffs' 176-page separate statement is excessive for a single discovery motion. While cutting and pasting may have saved time for plaintiffs' counsel, the voluminous document made the court's task extremely burdensome and difficult. 'Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.' U.S. v. Dunkel (7th Cir. 1991) 972 F.2d 955, 956.

B. The court also finds that plaintiffs made a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution.

(Yowarski Decl., ¶ 21; Ex. 6.) C. Turning to the merits, the court rules as follows: The motion is granted as to request 2. GM's objections lack merit. Documents regarding the subject vehicle are clearly relevant to plaintiffs' breach of warranty claims.

The motion is granted as to requests 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 28. Documents regarding other vehicles that are the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle may be relevant to showing GM's knowledge of widespread warranty problems. See Civ. Code § 1794(c); see also Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967. '[D]oubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery[.]' Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.

The motion is granted as limited by GM with respect to requests 3 and 4. GM has agreed to partially comply with these requests. Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing why a further response should be ordered. See Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 541 (propounding party has burden of filing motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory).

The motion is denied as to requests 1, 5, 6, 14, 25, and 28. The requests – which concern GM's 'investigation' efforts and various policies and procedures – are overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

D. Accordingly, GM is directed to serve further verified responses to requests 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 28 by October 27, 2023. In addition, GM must produce documents responsive to these requests – as well as requests 3 and 4 – by October 27, 2023.

4. CMC.

The parties must attend the hearing ready to assist the court in re-setting the case for trial.

___________________________ *GM attempted to file a declaration in support of its opposition brief. The document, however, was Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2994708 62 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ALVAREZ AND CORONA VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] 37-2022-00024713-CU-BC-CTL rejected because certain exhibits were not 'completely text searchable.' The court's independent calendar clerk left a message with GM's counsel regarding this issue. They neither responded nor attempted to refile the declaration.

**The court has ruled against GM in several similar settings earlier this year. See, e.g., Flemate v. GM, Case No. 2022-13871, rulings of May 5 and June 30, 2023.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2994708 62