2017-00216812-CU-BC

George Barlow vs. General Motors, LLC

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Filed By: Gi, Rodney

Plaintiffs George Barlow and Melinda Barlow’s Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production to Requests for Production is ruled on as follows

Plaintiffs motion seeks further responses from Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”) to requests for production, Nos. 7, 17, 20-26, 55-57, and 70.

In this Lemon Law action involving a 2009 Cadillac CTS which Plaintiffs allege had engine defects, Plaintiffs seek to compel Ford to provide full and complete responses to certain requests for production (set one). The requests relate to GM’s internal investigations and analysis regarding the Engine defects in plaintiffs’ vehicle and GM’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies. GM interposed numerous objections to the requests for production, including objections based on relevance, burden and oppression, attorney client privilege, work product, and confidential and proprietary information.

GM’s relevance objections are overruled. The subject requests seek documents related to GM’s internal investigation and analysis and warranty policies regarding the engine defects alleged to exist in Plaintiffs’ vehicle and other vehicles like plaintiffs’

vehicle.

Plaintiffs are entitled to information about engine defects regarding other 2009 Cadillac CTS vehicles. Indeed, in the discovery context, information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [citations omitted] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [court’s emphasis].) In fact, evidence regarding other vehicles with similar defects as Plaintiff’s could potentially be admissible at trial in a lemon law action. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154; see also Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 971.) Here, for example, the subject documents could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding GM’s knowledge of the transmission defects, that GM lacks the means to fix the defects and nevertheless refuses to repurchase Plaintiffs’ ehicle. Such information would certainly be relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim for civil penalties under Civil Code § 1794(c) given that Plaintiff must show a willful failure by GM in complying with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act.

GM’s burdensome and oppression objections are overruled. GM failed to substantiate any objection based on undue burden. Indeed, undue burden objections must be accompanied by a specific factual showing setting forth the amount of work necessary to respond to the subject discovery. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418.) GM’s opposition is devoid of any factual showing whatsoever and any objection based on undue burden is therefore overruled. Further, to the extent that the undue burden objection relates to emails and related electronic data, that objection has been waived. Indeed, an objection to production of ESI on the basis of undue burden must “identify in its response the types of categories of sources of electronically stored information.” (CCP §2031.210(d).) Failure to do so results in “any objections it may have relating to that electronically stored information.” (Id.) GM’s responses failed to meet the requirements of CCP § 2031.210(d) in this regard.

In addition, while GM interposed objections based on privilege, e.g., attorney-client, work-product and trade secret, it failed to indicate whether any documents were withheld on this basis. To the extent that GM withheld any documents on the basis of attorney-client, work product, and/or trade secret privileges, it must provide further responses that provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log. (CCP §2031.240.)

In addition, the other boilerplate objections, including the vagueness, ambiguity and overbreadth, are also overruled. The objections are meritless and no legitimate effort is made to justify them.

In opposition, GM contends that it has already provided many documents and that this motion is moot because it has made a 998 offer to repurchase the vehicle. However, there remain issues of civil penalties and plaintiffs are entitled to the discovery to determine whether GM will be liable for civil penalties for a wilful failure to repurchase the vehicle. GM is required to provide further responses without objections despite the fact that it contends it has already produced 609 pages of documents.

The Court finds that plaintiffs adequately met and conferred before filing this motion.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in its entirety.

No later than March 19, 2018, GM shall serve further responses in accordance with the above and in compliance with CCP 2031.230.