Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00849, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00849    Hearing Date: November 17, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          Plaintiffs Elisa Serrato and Richard Serrato (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for an order compelling Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).

In their memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiffs identify the requests at issue as RFP Nos. 37-41. (Memo, p. 2.) But their separate statement identifies additional requests, including RFP Nos. 16, 19-32, and 45-46. The parties had discussed these requests at an IDC held on May 31, 2023; as a result, Defendant agreed to provide supplemental responses and served them on August 8, 2023. On August 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this motion.  Because defense counsel avers that supplemental responses have already been provided to RFP No. 16, 19-32, and 45-46, and because Plaintiffs only refer to RFP Nos. 37-41 in their reply brief, the Court will only address RFP Nos. 37-41. 

By way of background, on September 17, 2021, Plaintiffs purchased a 2021 Chevrolet Tahoe with VIN #1GNSCTKLXMR311971 (“Subject Vehicle”).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Vehicle was delivered to them with serious defects and nonconformities to the warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to “engine and steering.”  (Complaint, ¶ 15.) 

          With respect to RFP No. 37, Plaintiffs demand documents “sufficient to identify” all of Defendant’s OBDII codes for the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle. Similarly, RFP Nos. 38 and 39 concern documents “sufficient to show” all of vehicle symptom codes, vehicle component repair codes for the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle. As for RFP Nos. 40 and 41, Plaintiffs demand documents “sufficient to show” all customer complaint codes from 2021 to the present, as well as labor operation codes provided to authorized dealerships for the same time period.

          In their moving papers, Plaintiffs demand a list of codes and documents which would explain the meaning of those codes. (Memo., pp. 5-6.) Plaintiffs argue that these codes are necessary to “interpreting” the repair orders and internal documents that Defendant has produced in this litigation. Plaintiffs argue that to establish a Song-Beverly claim they must prove the vehicle had a defect covered by Defendant’s warranty that substantially impaired its use, value, or safety and that Defendant was unable to repair after a reasonable number of attempts. They claim that the documents sought by way of these RFPs may constitute evidence that Defendant knew that the alleged problems concerning the Subject Vehicle were widespread yet failed to act. Plaintiffs state that, in other cases, Defendant has produced 2 PDF files (4 pages total) which appear to be taken from the appendix from sort of manual; therefore, they argue, a production would not be burdensome.

In opposition, Defendant’s only specific argument regarding RFP Nos. 37 to 41 is that the document requests are vague and overbroad because documents about other vehicles are irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendant’s defenses. The objection that these RFPs are overbroad is well-taken. The Complaint alleges a defect with regard to “[the] engine and steering.” (Compl., ¶ 15.) As currently written, RFP Nos. 37 through 41 seek documents pertaining to any and all repair codes, without regard to whether they concern the kind of defect (or defects) Plaintiffs allege with respect to the vehicle they purchased, and without any showing of how documents about other codes might reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Therefore, Defendant’s objection that RFP Nos. 37 through 41 are overbroad is sustained. Relevance is quite broad but not so broad that it encompasses defects other than the one alleged in this action. 

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is also DENIED.

Dated this 17th day of November, 2023

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.