Brian A Goldsworthy vs General Motors LLC

Case Number

22CV03371

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 12/15/2023 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Compel

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s motion to compel General Motors, LLC’s compliance with the court’s discovery order of August 11, 2023, is granted. General Motors, LLC shall comply with the courts August 11, 2023 order, by providing verified, code compliant, further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 17 and 18. The responses shall specifically respond to what is being asked. The further responses shall be served no later than January 5, 2024. Prospective sanctions are denied.

Background:

This action was commenced on August 31, 2022, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Brian A. Goldsworthy against defendant General Motors, LLC (“GM”). The complaint alleges causes of action as follows: (1) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); (2) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); (3) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); (4) Breach of express warranty; and (5) Breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

As alleged in the complaint: On December 1, 2020, Goldsworthy purchased a 2020 GMC Sierra 1500 manufactured and distributed by GM. (Complaint, ¶ 6.) In connection with the purchase of the vehicle, plaintiff received an express written warranty. (Id. at ¶ 10.) After Goldsworthy took possession of the vehicle, and during the warranty period, the vehicle developed defects including a defective engine. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 12.) Goldsworthy gave GM sufficient opportunity to repair the vehicle, but GM was unable or failed to repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts. (Id. at ¶¶ 14, 15.)

GM answered the complaint on October 31, 2022, with a general denial and 25 affirmative defenses.

On January 17, 2023, Goldsworthy served written discovery including requests for production of documents (set one) (“RFPs”) and special interrogatories (set one). (“SIs”) (Cohen Dec., ¶ 6 & Exhs. B, C.) GM responded to the RFPs and SIs on February 16, 2023 and provided verifications for the responses on March 16, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 7 & Exhs. D, E.) On March 23, 2023, Goldsworthy sent a meet and confer letter to GM requesting further responses to the discovery requests. (Id. at ¶ 8 & Exh. F.) On March 30, 2023, GM responded to the meet and confer letter. (Id. at ¶ 9 & Exh G.) On April 4, 2023, Goldsworthy sent a second meet and confer letter to GM, along with a signed copy of GM’s stipulation and protective order. (Id. at ¶ 10 & Exh. H.)

No resolution was reached with respect to the discovery requests and, as a result, Goldsworthy filed a motion to compel further responses. On August 11, 2023, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. As relevant to the present motion, included in the court order was a requirement that GM file verified, code compliant, further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 17 and 18.

On September 1, 2023, GM served supplemental response to plaintiff’s special interrogatories, including Nos. 17 and 18. (Cohen Dec., ¶ 4 & Exh. B.)

Deeming the responses to Nos. 17 and 18 deficient, on October 3, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to GM’s counsel. (Cohen Dec., ¶ 5 & Exh. C.) GM’s counsel did not respond to the letter. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff now moves to compel compliance with the court’s August 11, 2023 order regarding special interrogatories Nos. 17 and 18 as well as an order for prospective monetary sanctions.

GM opposes the motion arguing: “In its supplemental responses, GM identified and directed Plaintiff to the Bates number range of the documents corresponding to interrogatories and with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 18 stated it made a reasonable inquiry and conducted a diligent search, but is not currently aware of any documents responsive to these Requests.” (Opposition, p. 1, ll. 9-12.)

Analysis:

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.010 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.

“(b) An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”

“The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

“(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.

“(2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings.

“(3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).)

           

SI No. 17 asks: “Please state the number of new motor vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the subject vehicle sold in the United States.” SI No. 18 asks: “Please state the number of new motor vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the subject vehicle sold in the State of California.”

In its original responses to special interrogatories Nos. 17 and 18, GM asserted several objections and provided no substantive response beyond the objections.

In its supplemental responses to interrogatories Nos. 17 and 18, GM states: “GM has made a reasonable inquiry and conducted a diligent search regarding this Request and states that it is not currently aware of any documents responsive to this Request.”

The interrogatories are straight-forward and simply request that GM state numbers of new vehicles sold in the United States and California. They are not document requests. As such, GM’s responses make no sense in the context of what is being asked. Despite GM’s arguments that it has “identified and directed Plaintiff to the Bates number range of the documents corresponding to interrogatories and with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 18,” (opposition, p. 1, ll. 9-11) there is no evidence that GM has done so or opted to exercise their option to produce writings. The responses do not refer to any specific documents that may contain the requested information. GM’s arguments regarding providing additional documentation likewise make no sense in the context of the interrogatories. The list of documents, on pages 2 and 3 of the opposition, do not appear to be related to the information requested by way of special interrogatories 17 and 18 in any manner.

GM’s responses do not comply with the August 11, 2023 order that they provide code-compliant responses. As such, the motion to compel compliance will be granted.

            Sanctions

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Misuses of the discovery process include: “Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (g).)

“The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of discovery but to impose punishment.” (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.)

“The burden of proving  ‘substantial justification’ for failing to comply with a discovery order compelling answers or production of documents and opposing a motion to compel compliance is on the losing party claiming that it acted with ‘substantial justification.’ ” (Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1435.)

GM has not provided any justification for failing to comply with the court’s August 11, 2023 discovery order. However, prospective monetary sanctions are not appropriate for abuse of the discovery process and would improperly impose a punishment on GM. Had plaintiff moved for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, or other relevant code sections, and provided a declaration regarding the reasonable expenses and attorney fees in bringing this motion, the court may have been inclined to award those sanctions. Plaintiff did not do so, and prospective monetary sanctions will be denied.