Tyler Powell v. General Motors, LLC

Case Number

23CV01453

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 01/03/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and for Sanctions

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Tyler Powell: Tionna Dolin, Ebony Randolph, Strategic Legal Practice

For Defendant General Motors, LLC: Mary Arens McBride, Arash Yaraghchian, Erskine Law

Group, APC

                       

RULING

For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (set one) and for sanctions is denied in its entirety.

Background

This action was commenced on April 6, 2023, by the filing of the complaint by Tyler Powell 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 the implied warranty of merchantability; and (5) Violation of the Magnusson-Moss warranty act.

As alleged in the complaint:

On December 7, 2022, Plaintiff entered into a warranty contract with GM regarding a 2019 Chevrolet Suburban 1500 which was manufactured and distributed by GM. (Complaint, ¶ 6.) The warranty contained a bumper-to-bumper warranty, powertrain warranty, emission warranty. (Id. at ¶ 7 & Exh. A.) “Defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period, including but not limited to, transmission defects; engine defects; electrical defects; infotainment defects; among other defects and non-conformities.” (Id. at ¶ 11.) “Said defects/nonconformities substantially impair the use, value or safety of the vehicle.” (Id. at ¶ 12.) “The value of the subject vehicle is worthless and/or de minimis.” (Id. at ¶ 13.) “Under the Song-Beverly Act and/or the Magnuson-Moss Act, Defendant GM had an affirmative duty to promptly offer to repurchase or replace the Subject Vehicle at the time it failed to conform the Subject Vehicle to the terms of the express warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts.” (Id. at ¶ 14.) “Defendant GM has failed to either promptly replace the Subject Vehicle or to promptly make restitution in accordance with the Song-Beverly Act and/or the Magnuson-Moss Act.” (Id. at ¶ 15.)

GM answered the complaint on May 8, 2023, with a general denial and 25 affirmative defenses.

On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff served GM with requests for production of documents, set one, (“RFPs”) asking for 99 categories of documents. (Stoliker Dec., ¶ 23 & Exh. 5.) GM responded to the RFPs on April 5, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 25 & Exh. 6.)

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to RFPs Nos. 1, 3, 7, 17, 23, 24, 25, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 68, 76, 78, 79, 86, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, and 99 on September 20, 2023.

On November 1, 2023, the motion was continued to January 4, 2024. Among other things, counsel was ordered to further meet and confer, in good faith, to resolve or narrow their discovery dispute. They did not completely resolve the discovery dispute.

Plaintiff filed a supplemental points and authorities on November 27, 2023, which is three days later than the deadline of November 24, 2023, that Plaintiff was given by way of the order of November 1, 2023. Plaintiff also failed to file an updated meet and confer declaration of counsel as ordered. However, in the supplemental points and authorities, Plaintiff sets forth meet and confer efforts.

Plaintiff argues that some of the issues have been resolved but that GM has still failed to provide responsive documents to RFPs Nos. 17-42, 76, 78, and 92-99. (Supp. Points and Authorities, ¶¶ 6, 10.)

GM opposes the motion. GM argues that the disputed RFPs “seek GM’s internal analysis, investigations, communications, reports, government submissions, financial information, performance standards, diagnostic codes, and design-related documents (including other consumer complaints and matters) about the alleged ‘defect’ in vehicles other than Plaintiff’s own Suburban.” (Supp. Opposition, p. 3, ll. 17-21.)

Both parties acknowledge that they executed a stipulated protective order on September 20, 2023.

Analysis

            Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs

“A trial Court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery, may not use its discretion to extend the limits on discovery beyond those authorized by the Legislature, and should prefer partial to outright denials of discovery.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the Court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.010 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.

“(b) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.”

“The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:

“(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . .

“(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item, or

“(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.240, provides:

“(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.

“(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

“(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.

“(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.

“(c)(1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

“(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.”

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for production of documents “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) To establish good cause, the burden is on the moving party to make a “fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

            Request Nos. 17-42

Although Plaintiff claims that RFP Nos. 17-42 are all subject to the present motion to compel further responses, they are not. The original motion, as well as the separate statement, filed by Plaintiff does not include requests Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, or 35. Therefore, the only requests that are properly before the Court and will be addressed are RFP Nos. 17, 23, 24, 25, 36-42.

RFP No. 17 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including e-mails, concerning any internal analysis or investigations by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES equipped with the 10-speed Transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

GM responded to RFP No. 17 as follows: “GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms ‘concerning,’ ‘internal analysis,’ ‘investigation,’ ‘INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S),’ and ‘failure rates’ are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it improperly assumes that there are alleged defects with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE, or GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES, generally. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.”

Plaintiff argues that RFP No. 17 “seeks documents and information concerning the Defects of 2019 Chevrolet Suburban vehicles equipped with the same Infotainment as the Subject Vehicle, including internal investigations, emails, Defendant's warranty databases, customer complaints and field reports databases.” Plaintiff misrepresents the scope of the request. The request is not limited to defects affecting 2019 Chevrolet Suburban vehicles.

“A Plaintiff pursuing an action under the Song–Beverly Act has the burden to prove the following elements: (1) the product had a defect or nonconformity covered by the express warranty; (2) the product was presented to an authorized representative of the manufacturer for repair; and (3) the manufacturer or its representative did not repair the defect or nonconformity after a reasonable number of repair attempts.” (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 798-799.)

Other than arguing that other Courts “have repeatedly held that such documents are relevant to SBA claims,” Plaintiff offers no specific argument as to why he is entitled to this broad category of documents. Because of this concern, the Court ordered: “The supplemental documents should specifically address each disputed request rather than repeat the same legal authority and arguments regarding the scope of discovery and objections in general terms.” (November 1, 2023, Minute Order.) By way of his supplemental points and authorities, Plaintiff again failed to provide any specific reasons justifying the discovery sought and failed to show how the requested documents would in any way assist Plaintiff in proving the elements of an action under the Song-Beverly Act as to Plaintiff’s specific vehicle. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden and the motion to compel a further response will be denied.

RFP No. 23 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS concerning field reports, dealer contacts, warranty claims, customer complaints, claims, and/or reported failures regarding INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES, including any DOCUMENTS concerning YOUR response to each field report, customer complaint, reported failure, and warranty claim.”

RFP No. 24 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, regarding when General Motors Vehicles engineers learned, became aware of, or were notified about, INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES.”

RFP No. 25 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, regarding when any member of YOUR Recall committee or task force or their equivalent first learned, became aware of, or was notified about, INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES, or problems or potential problems with the 10-speed Transmission in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES.”

RFP No. 36 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, concerning any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, service messages, technical service bulletins and recalls, concerning the INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES equipped with the 10-speed Transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RFP No. 37 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, concerning the implementation and effectiveness of any campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins, service messages, and/or recalls concerning the INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S).”

RFP No. 38 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, concerning any decision currently under consideration to issue, or in the process of issuing, any recalls, notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, service messages, and technical service bulletins, concerning the INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES equipped with the 10-speed Transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RFP No. 39 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, concerning or relating in any way to any decision to modify the 10-speed Transmission, and/or any of its component parts, in response to INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES, from one year prior to Plaintiff’ purchase of the SUBJECT VEHICLE until the present.”

RFP No. 40 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS concerning the INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES equipped with the 10-speed Transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE and that are within YOUR Analytical Warranty System.”

RFP No. 41 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS regarding the INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES equipped with the 10-speed Transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

RFP No. 42 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, concerning any fixes for the INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES equipped with the 10-speed Transmission like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

GM responded to each of the above RFPs with the same or substantially the same language as follows: “GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms ‘concerning,’ ‘customer complaints,’ ‘claims,’ and ‘INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S)’ are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it improperly assumes that there are alleged defects with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE, or GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES, generally. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.”

Plaintiff’s reason to compel further responses to each of the RFPs is essentially: “Plaintiff incorporates by reference the reasons set forth under RFP No. 17, supra.” As with all of the RFPs in dispute, Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s order and fails to provide any specific reasons justifying the discovery sought. Plaintiff has not met his burden. The motion to compel further responses will be denied.

            Request Nos. 76 and 78

RFP No. 76 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including ESI and emails, regarding any communications between YOU and any government agency or entity (e.g., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (‘NHTSA’), the Environmental Protection Agency (‘EPA’), or any other similar government agency, regarding INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S) in GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES.”

GM responded: “GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms ‘communications,’ ‘other similar government agency or entity,’ and ‘INFOTAINMENT DEFECT(S)’ are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it improperly assumes that there are alleged defects with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE, or GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES, generally. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.”

Plaintiff’s reason for further response is, again, essentially that Courts “have repeatedly found these documents relevant to SBA claims.” Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s order and fails to provide any specific reasons justifying the discovery sought. Plaintiff has not met his burden. The motion to compel further responses will be denied.

RFP No. 78 seeks: “All Early Warning Reports (“EWR”) YOU submitted to NHTSA concerning GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES.”

GM responded: “GM objects to this Request on grounds the term “concerning” is vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. Subject to and without waiving any objections, GM responds that EWR for various model years and vehicles are equally available to all parties and can be obtained at NHTSA’s website at https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-manufacturers/early-warning-reporting. No documents will be produced.”

Plaintiff’s reason to compel a further response is: “Plaintiff incorporates by reference the reasons set forth under RFP No. 76, supra.” The motion to compel a further response will be denied for the same reason as RFP No. 76.

            RFP Nos. 92-99

RFP No. 92 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning Diagnostic Trouble Code (‘DTC’) U0415.”

RFP No. 93 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning Diagnostic Trouble Code (‘DTC’) C0800.”

RFP No. 94 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning Diagnostic Trouble Code (‘DTC’) U0422.”

RFP No. 95 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning Diagnostic Trouble Code (‘DTC’) U150F.”

RFP No. 96 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning Diagnostic Trouble Code (‘DTC’) C0045.”

RFP No. 97 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning Diagnostic Trouble Code (‘DTC’) B1011.”

RFP No. 98 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning Diagnostic Trouble Code (‘DTC’) U0121.”

RFP No. 99 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning Diagnostic Trouble Code (‘DTC’) B153E.”

GM responded to each of the requests: “GM objects to this Request on grounds the term ‘concerning’ is vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE or issues in this action. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.”

Plaintiff’s reason for complying further responses to each of the requests seek documents that are “probative of GM’s knowledge of the Defect” and that other Courts “have repeatedly held that such documents are relevant to SBA claims.”

As will all the other requests, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden. Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s order and fails to provide any specific reasons justifying the discovery sought. As such, the motion to compel further responses will be denied.

            Sanctions

The Court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)

Plaintiff was not successful in bringing their motion and no sanctions will be awarded in his favor against GM. GM did not request sanctions for opposing the motion and did not provide a declaration of time spent. Therefore, no sanctions will be awarded in favor of either party.