Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV03180, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING.  The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 22STCV03180    Hearing Date: August 30, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   August 30, 2023                                             

CASE NAME:           Victor Monrroy De Jesus, et al. v. General Motors, LLC

CASE NO.:                22STCV03180

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Victor Monrroy De Jesus and Maria Hurtado

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant General Motors

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Request for Production of Documents. 

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On January 26, 2022, Plaintiffs Victor Monrroy De Jesus and Maria Hurtado (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant.”). The complaint alleged two causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly – Breach of Express Warranty and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly – Breach of Implied Warranty. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased the subject vehicle in 2011 from Defendant, which contained various express and implied warranties. After returning the Vehicle to an authorized service and repair facilities to repair nonconformities, Defendant failed to conform the Vehicle to the warranties.

On May 5, 2022, Defendant General Motors, LLC filed an Answer.

On May 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses. Defendant’s Opposition was filed on August 15, 2023. Plaintiffs’ Reply was filed on August 23, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD:

The propounding party may bring a motion to compel further responses to a demand for production if the propounding party deems that production is deficient, incomplete, or contains meritless objections.  CCP § 2031.310(a).  The legal burden to justify refusing or failing to provide discovery lies with the objecting party.  (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220). 

The motion must be accompanied by a good-faith meet-and-confer declaration. CCP § 2031.310(b). “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate . . . involves the exercise of discretion.” (Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016).  “The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant.  Judges have broad powers and responsibility to determine what measure and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances.”  Id. 

CCP § 2031.310 provides the court shall apposes monetary sanctions against a person, party, or attorney that unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless that subject to sanction acted “with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.”  CCP § 2023.010(h).  The court “may impose a monetary sanction” against any attorney or party, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, if there has been a “misuse of the discovery process.  CCP § 2023.030(a).  “A trial court has broad discretion when imposing a discovery sanction.”  (Lee v. Lee (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1559). 

Meet and Confer Efforts:

Defendant argues in the Opposition that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith. Plaintiff did not attempt to resolve the disputes, but declared their requests valid and Defendant’s GM’s invalid, and did not make any attempts to avoid motion practice.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant to provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Nos. 16, 19-32, 37-41, and 45-46.

Plaintiffs argues that the responses provided by Defendant were insufficient and improper, as they were not code-compliant. Specifically, Defendant did not identify which document responded to the specific request. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that the discovery sought is relevant.

2.      Request Nos. 16, 19-32 seek documents related to GM’s policies and procedures when handling repurchase or replacement requests.

3.      Requests Nos. 37-41 and 45-46 seek similar consumer complaints of other vehicles of the same make, model, and year as Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

Defendant argues that after the IDC, which took place on April 24, 2023, Defendant provided supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 16, 19-32, 45-46 on July 3, 2023. Thus, the motion as to these requests is moot as there is nothing more to compel.

As for RFP Nos. 37-41, Defendant argues that these requests are vague and overbroad. Whether Plaintiffs’ vehicle conformed to the warranty or was repaired in a reasonable number of attempts is the issue, not whether other vehicles conformed or were repaired. Additionally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff requests documents that are confidential and contain trade secret material.[1]

After reviewing the Requests for Production of Documents, the Court finds that further responses must be provided to some of the requests. “Section 2017.010 and other statues governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor or disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes of denial’” (Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1, 15). In Reply, Plaintiff indicates that Defendant failed to indicate which documents correspond to which requests. Thus, Defendant needs to indicate which document goes with which response.

As to requests 37-41, the Court finds that these requests are overbroad. The requests are for all customer complaint codes. This is not narrow and likely requests irrelevant material.

Therefore, Motion to Compel Further is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

Sanctions:

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Further, sanctions are mandatory in the event that a party “unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification…” (CCP § 2031.310). Additionally, under CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), and 2033.280(c), sanctions are mandatory.

Plaintiffs seek $3,210.00 in sanctions. This is based on 3 hours preparing the motion and anticipated 2 hours for reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply, as well as another 2 hours for preparing and attending the hearing. Lastly, a $60.00 filing fee was required for this motion. The hourly rate is $450.

The Court finds the anticipatory time for preparing the motion and attending the hearing unreasonable. Therefore, the Court will award sanctions totaling $1860.

Conclusion:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Motion to Compel Further Response is GRANTED, as to RPD Nos. 16, 19-32, 45-46, and DENIED, as to RPD Nos. 37-41. R

Request for Sanction is GRANTED in the amount of $1,860 payable within 30 days service of this order.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             August 30, 2023                      __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court