Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV01322, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV01322    Hearing Date: April 26, 2023    Dept: W

OMAR VALDIVIA v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Plaintiff’s motions to compEL fuRther discovery responses

Date of Hearing:        April 26, 2022                                     Trial Date:       None set.   

Department:              W                                                        Case No.:        22VECV01322

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Omar Valdivia  

Responding Party:     Defendant General Motors, LLC

BACKGROUND

This case arises in the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiff Omar Valdivia alleges he purchased a 2018 Chevrolet Equinox manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant General Motors, LLC. The complaint alleges Plaintiff’s vehicle contained several defects including defective condition system, electrical system, body system, transmission system, ignition system, and defective engine, all of which Defendant failed to repair or repurchase despite knowledge the vehicle suffered from those defects.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant on September 8, 2022.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED, in part.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED, in part.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION

Plaintiff Valdivia, in reply, submits evidentiary objections to portions of the declaration of Ryan Kay.

The court sustains Plaintiff’s objections nos. 1-6.

discussion

Meet and Confer

A moving party seeking to compel further responses for requests for production must show good cause along with satisfaction of the meet and confer requirement. (CCP§ 2031.310(b.)

In opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to sufficiently meet and confer with GM in good faith. Defendant contends Plaintiff’s communications were not a “good faith” effort to “meet and confer” with GM.

Plaintiff responds contrary to Defendant’s assertions, Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendant in good faith. Prior to participating in an IDC with the court, Plaintiff explained the relevance and probative value of the disputed Requests.

Whether or not the parties met and conferred in good faith, it is clear the parties have reached an impasse as to this issue and the court will address the motion on its merits.  (See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Superior Court (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 326, 332.)  

Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiff moves for an order overruling and striking Defendant’s meritless objections and compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) Nos. 7, 8, 10-14, 21- 24, and 27-30 (the “Requests”) and all responsive documents corresponding to those requests.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, the court may order a responding to serve a further response to a request for production when the court finds that any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; and (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general.

Plaintiff seeks documents reflecting: (1) Defendant’s internal investigation and analysis of the Engine Defect plaguing Plaintiff’s vehicle and establishing Defendant’s awareness of said Defect, knowledge that it could not repair the vehicle regardless of the number of repair attempts afforded, and failure to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle despite such knowledge (i.e., Nos. 8, 10- 14 and 27-30); and, (2) Defendant’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, procedures, and practices (i.e., Nos. 7 and 21-24). Plaintiff contends the documents sought will establish (1) Defendant was aware that the Engine Defect is a common one plaguing 2018 Chevrolet Equinox vehicles, (2) Defendant could not repair the Engine Defect regardless of the number of repair opportunities afforded, and (3) Defendant knew (or should have known) that the Engine Defect was not repaired when Defendant failed to promptly repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle prior to the commencement of this lawsuit. Despite this, Plaintiff argues Defendant asserted various boilerplate objections in response to these Requests and failed to produce any responsive documents.

In opposition, Defendant argues their objections are well founded. Moreover, Defendant claims they have already produced some of the documents Plaintiff seeks an order further compelling. The court notes Plaintiff does not address Defendant’s contention regarding having already produced a copy of GM’s Warranty and Policy and Procedure Manual or GM’s policies and procedures used to evaluate lemon law claims and repurchase requests made under Song-Beverly during the relevant time period.

The court does not agree with Defendant GM’s contention that Plaintiff does not need documents about other vehicles. In Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154, the court upheld a trial court’s determination that evidence of “the transmission model Ford installed in plaintiff’s truck and other vehicles” should not be excluded from trial as prejudicial in a Song–Beverly Act case brought by a single plaintiff.  Therefore, relevant discovery may extend beyond Plaintiff’s specific vehicle to all vehicles of the same make, modely and year. (Cf. Elsworth v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 540, 555 (“Evidence of prior accidents is admissible to prove a defective condition, knowledge, or the cause of an accident, provided that the circumstances of the other accidents are similar and not too remote.”).) Additionally, Defendant has not established good cause for asserting trade secret information. If Defendant GM believes the information will disclose trade secrets or Personally Identifiable Information, Defendant GM may seek a protective order.

At the hearing, Plaintiff must address whether GM has produced the documents relevant to RPD No. 7 and 10 as well as any other documents that may have been produced regarding the instant Requests. Regardless, the court compels further responses and production of documents to RPD No. 7, 8, 10-14, 21-24, and 27-30. To the extent the requests call for nationwide discovery, the court finds the requests to be unduly burdensome and oppressive and limits the discovery to California. (See Civil Code §§ 1792.) For example, Requests Nos. 50 and 63 must be further limited to California “consumer calls” (Request No. 23) and “notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls” for vehicles purchased in California (Request No. 11).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) Nos. 7, 8, 10-14, 21- 24, and 27-30 is GRANTED, in part.

Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff moves for an order overruling and striking Defendant GM’s meritless objections and compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2, 18, 19, and 26 (collectively, the “Interrogatories”).

A motion to compel further responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (CCP §2030.300(a).)

Plaintiff seeks information concerning Defendant’s internal investigation and analysis of the Engine Defect plaguing Plaintiff’s vehicle and establishing Defendant’s awareness of said Defect, knowledge that it could not repair the vehicle regardless of the number of repair attempts afforded, and failure to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle notwithstanding this knowledge. Plaintiff contends discovery into these matters will establish that (1) Defendant was aware that the Engine Defect was a common one plaguing 2018 Chevrolet Equinox vehicles, (2) Defendant could not repair the Engine Defect regardless of the number of repair opportunities afforded, and (3) Defendant knew (or should have known) that the Engine Defect was not repaired when Defendant failed to promptly repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle prior to the commencement of this lawsuit, which is relevant to Defendant’s liability. Despite this, Defendant asserted various boilerplate objections in response to these Interrogatories.

In opposition, Defendant GM argues Plaintiff does not need documents about other vehicles or all documents relating to technical service bulletins, notice, letter, campaigns, warranty extensions and recalls. Defendant GM further argues Plaintiff’s requests impermissibly seek trade secret material and other protected information.

SROG No. 2 seeks Defendant to identify repair documents issued by Defendant GM for the same make,  year, model vehicle as the subject vehicle that pertain to the engine defect in the subject vehicle; SROG No. 18 seeks Defendant to contend they are under no obligation to repurchase or replace the subject vehicle; SROG No. 19 seeks all repair documents relating to the subject vehicle; and SROG No. 26 seeks Plaintiff to identify all databases used to evaluate the engine defect in vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the subject vehicle.

The court grants further responses to Plaintiff’s request for SROG No. 2, 18, 19 and 26 provided that the responses may be limited to vehicle purchases and policies in California.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED, in part.