Preview
JOURNEY LAW GROUP, INC.
Guy Mizrahi, Esq. (SBN 220930)
Arya Malek, Esq. (SBN 325782)
1762 Westwood Blvd., Suite 260
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: 424.206.4303
Facsimile: 424.220.7388
E-FILED
Attorneys for Plaintiff, DARVETTA FORD 2/26/2020 1:23 PM
Superior Court of California
County of Fresno
By: J. Nelson, Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO, B.F. SISK COURTHOUSE
10
DARVETTA FORD, an individual, Case No. 19CECG02967
11 [Filed: August 15, 2019]
12 Plaintiff,
Hon. Alan Simpson
13 Dept. 502
14
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware Limited PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE
15 STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN
Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 20,
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
16 inclusive, DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES
TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
17 Defendants. DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
18 [Concurrently filed with Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel Further Responses to Request for
19 Production of Documents (Set One) and
Declaration of Arya Malek in Support of
20 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Request for Production of
21 Documents (Set One) and Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
22 (Set One)]
23
Date: May 13, 2020
24 Time: 3:30 p.m.
Dept: 502
25
26 Trial: January 4, 2021
27 Ml
28 Ml
-l-
PLAINTIFF'S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Pursuant to Rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court, Plaintiff DARVETTA FORD (“Plaintiff”)
submits the following Separate Statement of Items in Dispute in support of her Motion to Compel
Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC’s (“Defendant”) Further Responses to Request for
Production of Documents (Set One).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
All version of the Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual published by YOU and provided
to YOUR authorized repair facilities within the state if California effective from Plaintiff's date of
purchase of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to the present date.
10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
11 GM objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome,
12 particularly with respect to the term time frame and "versions." More specifically, the request would
13 require GM to compile information related to GMs policies on every ve hicle sold in the State of
14 California since 2015, none of which are related to this individual lawsuit or the SUBJECT
15 VEHICLE. This request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53
16 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the
17 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and
18 breadth of this request. GM is unable to identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, or
19 electronically stored information falling within this category of objection because of the nature of its
20 overbreadth. GM also objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the
21 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine, as this request would also include the
22 documents created in anticipation of litigation, the legal file of the GM Legal Staff and local counsel.
23 Moreover, this request seeks confidential and proprietary information in the form of GMs internal
24 policies and procedures. Subject to and without waiving these objections, and subject to the entry of
25 an appropriate protective order, GM will produce the applicable Warranty Policy and Procedure
26 manual.
27 Mt
28 Mt
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
LEGAL ARGUMENT_SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO. 10:
A. The Requested Documents Are Relevant and Necessary for Trial Preparatio
This request seeks the Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual Defendant provides to its
authorized repair facilities that outlines the policies and procedures governing warranty repair visits.
The manual is within the scope of discovery because it is probative of Defendant’s good faith
compliance with Song-Beverly, including the replace or refund obligation, express warranty
provisions and the implied warranty of merchantability. Civil Code §§ 1791.1, 1793.2, 1794.
Defendant’s boilerplate objections, addressed below, provide no basis to withhold the manual.
Despite Plaintiff's proposal to enter of the Los Angeles County Model Protective Order, Defendant
10
has still refused to produce its Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual relating to the subject
HT
vehicle.
12
B. Relevance of the Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual
13
Plaintiff alleges that the subject vehicle suffers from defects to the engine system that
14
substantially impair its use and value and that Defendant was unable to repair after a reasonable
15
number of repair attempts. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant’s failure to comply with Song-
16
Beverly by not repurchasing the vehicle was in bad faith, thereby subjecting Defendant to a civil
17
penalty.
18
The Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual, which is provided by Defendant to its
19
authorized repair facilities and outlines the policies and procedures to be followed by those facilities
20
with respect to warranty repair visits, will shed light on how the repair facilities treat and handle
21
repair visits. It will show how the dealerships know what is covered by Defendant’s express warranty
22
and how to submit warranty claims. It will also detail any instructions from Defendant to its
23
dealerships regarding “lemon law” related issues (as the “lemon law” is implicated by repeat visits
24
to the dealership). It will further detail any instructions from Defendant to the dealerships regarding
25
how to handle repeat visits for the same complaint. For example, these documents will show how
26
Defendant instructs its dealerships to proceed when there are repeated problems, such as those
27
experienced by Plaintiff.
28
3-
PLAINTIFF'S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
In addition, the Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual is relevant to Defendant’s civil
penalty liability. Under Song-Beverly, a “manufacturer has an affirmative duty to replace a vehicle
or to make restitution to the buyer if the manufacturer is unable to repair the new vehicle after a
reasonable number of repair attempts...” Lukather v. General Motors, LLC (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th
1041, 1050. A willful failure to comply with that duty exposes the manufacturer to civil penalty
liability. Civil Code §1794(c). In Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 190 Cal.App.4th
1097, the evidence established that the vehicle manufacturer maintained a policy of requiring a part
to be replaced or adjusted before it was deemed a “repair attempt” under the lemon law. The evidence
also showed that the manufacturer refused to find a “repair attempt” where a mechanic was unable
10 to diagnose the problem. Orege/, 90 Cal.App.4" at 1103-1105. The court found that those policies
11 and procedures were sufficient to establish a finding of willfulness. Jd. 1104-1105 (affirming finding
12 of willfulness and imposition of civil penalty where evidence showed that defendant “adopted
13 internal policies that erected hidden obstacles to the ability of an unwary consumer to obtains redress
14 under the Act”). Similarly, in Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th. 1191, 1199, the
15 California Supreme Court found that Ford’s buyback program was “structured precisely to short-
16 circuit lemon law claims,” entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
17 Here, Plaintiff is entitled to discovery relating to Defendant’s policies regarding handling
18 warranty repairs and vehicle repurchases. To that end, Defendant’s warranty policies manual and
19 related documents will illustrate whether Defendant instituted warranty policies, procedures or
20 practices that “short-circuit” consumer protections under Song-Beverly similar to the Defendant
21 manufacturer in Oregel.
22 C. Defendant’s Boilerplate Objections Are Meritles:
23 Defendant’s objection that the Request is overbroad and unduly burdensome lacks merit.
24 “The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work
25 required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent
26 to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the
27 result sought.” West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles (1963) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417 (“The objection
28 of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.”); see also, Columbia
~4.
PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 (in determining whether the burden is
unjust, a weighing process is required where the amount of work is so great and the utility of the
information sought so minimal that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the responding party
to answer). The responding party is required to make more than a conclusory statement of burden
or expense. Coriell v. Super. Ct. (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 487, 492-93. Here, Defendant has not even
attempted to carry either one of its burdens, let alone both of them. Rather, Defendant merely states
conclusory objections based on some undue burden without further elaboration as the extent of the
burden or the potential work involved in answering the Requests. Defendant’s objections based on
the Request being overbroad and unduly burdensome are without merit.
10 Defendant’s objection that this Request is vague and ambiguous is also improper. A party
11 objecting to discovery requests as vague and ambiguous has the burden to show such vagueness or
12 ambiguity and, in responding to discovery requests, should exercise reason and common sense to
13 attribute ordinary definitions to terms and phrases utilized in the discovery sought. “Indeed, where
14 the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper
15 solution is to provide an appropriate response.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.
16 Courts do not look favorably upon the use of boilerplate objections such as “vague and ambiguous:
17 and will not typically sustain such objections. See, Standon Co., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1990)225
18 Cal.App.3rd 898, 903 (noting that an objection of “vague, ambiguous and unintelligible” to a request
19 for “any and all bills, statements and invoices” may be treated as a “nuisance” objection exposing
20 the responding party to sanctions); see also, Manzetti v. Super Ct. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 373, 377.
21 Defendant’s objections based on the trade secret privilege is an improper objection. See
22 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23. If defendant
23 truly felt the information sought in the Requests is private, proprietary, and/or confidential, it should
24 have sought a protective order rather than lodging such an objection. (Id; Cal. Code Civ.
25 §2031.060(b).) A party claiming confidentiality protections must show good cause for the need in
26 terms of the protective order. (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th
27 261, 318.) There must be a showing that the information sought actually contains confidential
28 commercial information (not otherwise known to other in the pertinent field) and that its
~5-
PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
dissemination would cause injury. (Jd.) Truly proprietary information, which is entitled to the law’s
protection, is that information which holds independent economic value and is the subject of
reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. (Cal. Civ. Code §3426.1(d).) Moreover, defendant fails to
recognize that the claim to such privilege may be defeated if the trade secret information is the source
of injury. (Cal. Evid. Code §1060, Law Revision Commission Comments (7 Cal.L.Rev.Comm.
Reports 1 (1965) (citing Willson v. Super. Ct. (1924) 66 Cal.App.275).) Defendant has failed to
meet its burdens to sustain this objection.
The Court should order Defendant to provide a Code-compliant response and produce all
responsive documents
10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
11 A copy of the Workshop Manual specifying diagnosis and repair procedures for vehicles that
12 are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
14 GM responds that shop manuals for various model years and vehicles are as equally available
15 to all parties and can be obtained by writing to Helm, Incorporated, Publications Division, Post Office
16 Box 07150, Detroit Michigan 48207, toll free telephone (800) 782-4356.
17 LEGAL ARGUMENT SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO
18 REQUEST NO. 11:
19 This Request seeks production of Defendant’s Workshop Manual. The Workshop Manual
20 contains all the diagnostic and repair procedures for the subject vehicle. Defendant provides it to its
21 repair facilities to guide the service technicians on how to diagnose and fix defects in the vehicles.
22 Such information is clearly relevant to the instant matter insofar as it may provide insight into how
23 Defendant's repair facilities are to handle repairs and diagnose problems. The requested documents
24 are also probative to show the defects contained in the vehicle and whether Defendant’s technicians
25 followed proper instructions in attempting to repair them. These documents will further assist
26 Plaintiffs expert in rendering opinions as to whether Defendant’s recommended repairs are
27 sufficient to actually fix the defects in the vehicle.
28
6-
PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
If the information sought “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing
for trial or facilitating settlement, its discovery is permissible.” Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48
Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611. Any question as to discoverability is resolved in favor of allowing
discovery. Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119.
The requested documents are also relevant to the issues related to Defendant's good faith
compliance with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, including breach of the express
warranty and implied warranty of merchantability. Civil Code § 1791.1, 1793.2, 1794; e.g. Johnson
v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, 1198, 1199 [court in Song-Beverly Act litigation admitted
evidence of Ford's corporate policies and practices regarding reacquisition of vehicles and issuance
10 of credits for trade-ins]; Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1104-
11 1105 [internal company policies that demonstrate hidden obstacles for consumer to obtain redress
12 are admissible].
13 The scope of discovery includes those documents identified above concerning similar defects
14 experienced by other customers. See Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143-
15 144, 153 [evidence of special service bulletins issued before plaintiff bought his truck and evidence
16 of similar transmission problems in other trucks were relevant and admissible]; Doppes v. Bentley
17 Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973, 978-979, 986 [documents of warranty complaints,
18 service histories, and employee records concerning the subject defect in all affected vehicles and the
19 company's responses and instructions re: cure were discoverable and relevant to issue of Defendant's
20 good faith treatment of the problem].
21 The Court should order Defendant to provide a Code-compliant response and produce all
22 responsive documents.
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
24 All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern diagnosis and/or repair procedures for
25 any of the complaints reported by Plaintiff to YOUR authorized repair facilities regarding the
26 SUBJECT VEHICLE at any time (this Request includes, but is not limited to, all DOCUMENTS
27 which describe, outline, detail, or otherwise specify diagnostic and repair procedures used by
28 Defendant's technicians such as technical service bulletins, recall notices, special service messages,
aye
PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
campaign bulletins, diagnostic flow charts, diagnostic trouble code or fault code diagnosis keys,
power point presentations, internal investigation reports, field reports, causal factor analyses, failed
component analyses, and/or any other DOCUMENT which refers, relates to or concerns the repairs
performed by Defendant's technicians).
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
GM objects to this request lacks the specificity dictated by the Code of Civil procedure and
is vague and ambiguous. GM objects because this request seeks documents that are irrelevant and
this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. GM also
objects as the request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive. For example, this request is so
10 broad that it would encompass a hand-written note between two employees asking whether a repair
11 order has been logged, which has nothing to do with this lawsuit. This request violates Calcor Space
12 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether
13 Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and
14 incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this request. GM is unable to identify with particularity
15 any document, tangible thing, or electronically stored information falling within this category of
16 objection because of the nature of its overbreadth. GM also objects to the extent this request seeks
17 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. In addition, GM objects to this request to the
18 extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine,
19 as this request would also include the documents created in anticipation of litigation, the legal file of
20 the GM Legal Staff and local counsel. Subject to and without waiving any objections, GM will
21 comply in part and refers Plaintiff to any incidentally obtained repair orders, the Global Warranty
22 Vehicle History Printout, and any Service Request Activity Report(s). GMs investigation and
23 discovery are continuing. GM reserves the right to supplement or amend this response during the
24 course of this proceeding.
25 Mt
26 Mt
27 Ml
28 Mt
-8-
PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
LEGAL ARGUMENT SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO. 12:
Similar to Request for Production No. 11, this Request seeks documents related to diagnostic
and repair procedures for the complaints reported by Plaintiff to Defendant’s authorized repair
facilities.
For the reasons set forth supra regarding Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 11, the Court
should order Defendant to provide a Code-compliant Response and produce all responsive
documents to this Request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
10 All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern any technical service bulletin issued, or
11 in the process of being issued for vehicles that are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT
12 VEHICLE (this Request includes, but is not limited to, all documents giving rise to the issuance of
13 the technical service bulletins and the technical service bulletins themselves).
14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
15 GM objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous. GM also objects as the request is
16 overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, self-serving, and seeks documents that are irrelevant and
17 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request asks for stored
18 information for every GM vehicle GM has ever made, without any temporal or geographical limit.
19 Those vehicles have nothing to do with this individual lawsuit or the SUBJECT VEHICLE. This
20 request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61
21 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly
22 Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this
23 request. GM is unable to identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, or electronically
24 stored information falling within this category of objection because of the nature of its overbreadth.
25 GM also objects to the extent this request seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information.
26 In addition, GM objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
27 client privilege and/or work-product doctrine, as this request would also include the documents
28 created in anticipation of litigation, the legal file of the GM Legal Staff and local counsel. Subject to
PLAINTIFF'S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
and without waiving this objection, GM will comply in part and produce any Service Request
Activity Report(s), and a list of technical service bulletins related to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
LEGAL ARGUMENT SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO
REQUEST NO. 16:
A. The Requested Documents Are Relevant and Necessary for Trial Preparation
Plaintiff claims that the subject vehicle suffers from substantial engine defects that Defendant
is aware of and has been unable to repair. As part of the investigation, Plaintiff seeks all applicable
recall notices and technical service bulletins (TSBs) that apply to the vehicle in order to determine if
one or more of the defects which afflict the subject vehicle is addressed by or covered by the recall
10 or service bulletins.
Recalls and TSBs are documents published by manufacturers, such as Defendant, that affirm
11
their knowledge of a widespread problem and propose potential diagnoses and repair procedures for
12
those defects. The existence of TSBs and recalls, including the documents giving rise to their
13
publication, demonstrate Defendant’s knowledge that a well-known problem exists. Moreover,
14
widespread defects are often difficult to diagnose and repair which results in manufacturers routinely
15
publishing updated bulletins and recalls based on continued review and assessment by the
16
manufacturers. These documents demonstrate that Defendant knew it lacked a proper fix for the
17
defects in Plaintiff's vehicle and nevertheless refused to repurchase it.
18
In truth, Defendant had ready electronic access to reports giving rise to any defects and could
19
produce an electronic copy of such report without significant burden or effort. Defendant has
20
produced the indexes related to this Request. This request seeks the TSBs themselves and all
21
documents and investigations that gave rise to the TSBs. However, Defendant merely produced
22
TSB/Recall indexes.
23
Because the standards of relevance during discovery are broader than those of admissibility
24
at trial, defendant must, under Donlen, produce all responsive documents, notwithstanding the fact
25
that they may involve vehicles other than plaintiff's vehicle. Norton v. Superior Court (1994) 24
26
Cal.App.4th 1750, 1760-1761 (an admissible document is necessarily discoverable).
27
28
-10-
PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
The requested documents are relevant to the issues related to Defendant's good faith
compliance with Song-Beverly, including breach of the express warranty and implied warranty of
merchantability. (Civil Code §§ 1791.1, 1793.2, 1794; e.g. Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35
Cal.4th 1191, 1198, 1199 [court in Song-Beverly Act litigation admitted evidence of Ford's corporate
policies and practices regarding reacquisition of vehicles and issuance of credits for trade-ins];
Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1104-1105 [internal company
policies that demonstrate hidden obstacles for consumer to obtain redress are admissible].)
B. Defendant’s Response is Improper
The party to whom a production demand is sent must respond by: (1) a statement that the
10 party will comply; (2) a statement that the party is lacks the ability to comply with the particular
11 demand despite a diligent search and reasonable inquiry; or, (3) an objection to all or part of the
12 demand. If only a portion of the demand is objectionable, the response must contain an agreement
13 to comply or specify that it is unable to do so and why. C.C.P. § 2031.230, 240(a). Moreover, full
14 and proper compliance requires that the documents subject to production actually be produced in the
normal course of business and/or sorted to correspond with the categories of the document demand.
15
C.C.P. § 2031.280(a). Defendant’s Response fails to comply with these Requirements.
16
C. Defendant’s Boilerplate Objections Are Meritles:
17
Defendant’s objection that the Request is overbroad and unduly burdensome also lacks merit.
18
“The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work
19
required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent
20
to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the
21
result sought.” West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles (1963) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417 (“The objection
22
of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.”); see also, Columbia
23
Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 (in determining whether the burden is
24
unjust, a weighing process is required where the amount of work is so great and the utility of the
25
information sought so minimal that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the responding party
26
to answer). The responding party is required to make more than a conclusory statement of burden
27
or expense. Coriell v. Super. Ct. (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 487, 492-93.
28
-ll-
PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
Here, Defendant has not even attempted to carry either one of its burdens, let alone both of
them. Rather, Defendant merely states conclusory objections based on some undue burden without
further elaboration as the extent of the burden or the potential work involved in answering the
Requests. Defendant’s objections based on the Request being overbroad and unduly burdensome
are without merit.
Defendant’s objections based on the trade secret privilege is an improper objection. See
Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23. If defendant
truly felt the information sought in the Requests is private, proprietary, and/or confidential, it should
have sought a protective order rather than lodging such an objection. (Id. Cal. Code Civ.
10 §2031.060(b).) A party claiming confidentiality protections must show good cause for the need in
11 terms of the protective order. (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th
12 261, 318.) There must be a showing that the information sought actually contains confidential
13 commercial information (not otherwise known to other in the pertinent field) and that its
14 dissemination would cause injury. (/d.) Truly proprietary information, which is entitled to the law’s
15 protection, is that information which holds independent economic value and is the subject of
16 reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. (Cal. Civ. Code §3426.1(d).) Moreover, defendant fails to
17 recognize that the claim to such privilege may be defeated if the trade secret information is the source
18 of injury. (Cal. Evid. Code §1060, Law Revision Commission Comments (7 Cal.L.Rev.Comm.
19 Reports 1 (1965) (citing Willson v. Super. Ct. (1924) 66 Cal.App.275).) Defendant has failed to
20 meet its burdens to sustain this objection.
21 The Court should order Defendant to provide a Code-compliant response and produce all
responsive documents.
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
24 All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern any recalls issued, or in the process of
25 being issued for vehicles that are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE (this
26 Request includes, but is not limited to, all documents giving rise to the issuance of the recalls and
27 the recalls themselves).
28 Mt
_
PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
GM objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous. GM also objects as the request is
overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, self-serving, and seeks documents that are irrelevant and
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request asks for stored
information for every GM vehicle GM has ever made, without any temporal or geographical limit.
Those vehicles have nothing to do with this individual lawsuit or the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 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
10 request. GM is unable to identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, or electronically
11 stored information falling within this category of objection because of the nature of its overbreadth.
12 GM also objects to the extent this request seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information.
13 In addition, GM objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
14 client privilege and/or work-product doctrine, as this request would also include the documents
1S created in anticipation of litigation, the legal file of the GM Legal Staff and local counsel. Subject to
16 and without waiving this objection, GM will comply in part and produce any Service Request
17 Activity Report(s), and a list of recalls related to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
18 LEGAL _ARGUMENT_SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO
19 REQUEST NO. 17:
20 For the reasons set forth supra regarding Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 16, the court
21 should order Defendant to provide a Code-compliant Response and produce all responsive
22 documents to this Request.
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
24 All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern the handling of repeat complaints by
25 customers regarding their vehicles.
26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
GM objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome,
27
particularly with respect to the terms "refer," and "relate to." More specifically, the request would
28
-13-
PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
require GM to compile information related to GM world-wide on every vehicle sold since 2015, none
of which are related to this individual lawsuit or the SUBJECT VEHICLE. GM is unable to identify
with particularity any document, tangible thing, or electronically stored information falling within
this category of objection because of the nature of its overbreadth. GM also objects to this request to
the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product
doctrine, as this request would also include the documents created in anticipation of litigation, the
legal file of the GM Legal Staff and local counsel. Moreover, this request seeks confidential and
proprietary information in the form of GMs internal policies and procedures. Subject to and without
waiving these objections, and subject to the entry of an appropriate protective order, GM will produce
the applicable policy and procedure documents.
10
LEGAL ARGUMENT _ SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO
11
REQUEST NO. 20:
12
A. The Requested Documents Are Relevant and Necessary for Trial Preparation
13
This request seeks Defendant’s documents regarding the handling of repeat complaints
14
regarding vehicles. It is essentially looking for documents which outline and describe how
15
Defendant expects its agents and employees to handle situations involving repeat complaints
16
regarding vehicles. Prior to the commencement of the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff contacted Defendant
17
directly on three separate occasions to seek assistance with her Vehicle in light of the ongoing defects
18
he was experiencing. See Malek Decl., { 12. In response, Defendant did not offer to repurchase the
19
Vehicle. The information sought in this Request will shed light on precisely what Defendant
20
reviewed, if anything, and how it handles repeat complaints. At a minimum, the discovery will
21
provide insight into the reasons why Defendant decided against repurchasing the subject vehicle
22
pursuant to Song-Beverly.
23
Under Song-Beverly, if Plaintiff establishes that Defendant willfully failed to comply with
24
any obligations under the act, then Plaintiff is entitled to civil penalty damages. Civ. Code §1794(d);
25
Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1104. Moreover, while
26
Defendant may claim it believed, in good faith, it was not obligated to repurchase Plaintiff's vehicle,
27
this Request will shed light on such claim of good faith and seeks to assess what Defendant knew
28
-14-
PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
and why Defendant failed to act. Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 186
(“A decision made without the use of reasonably available information germane to that decision is
not a reasonable, good faith decision.”)
Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to discovery relating to Defendant’s policies, procedures
and practices regarding repeat complaints by customers regarding their vehicles. See Oregel, 90
Cal.App.4th at 1105 (evidence that Defendant has “adopted internal policies that erected hidden
obstacles of the ability of any unwary consumer to obtain redress under the Act” may support a
finding of willfulness to support a civil penalty). See also Lukather v. General Motors (2010) 181
Cal.App.4th 1041, 1051-52 (holding evidence of delay and active discouragement from pursuing a
10 remedy under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was sufficient to support a finding of
Il willfulness and civil penalty damages). Despite Defendant’s contention that it will produce the
12 Service Policies and Procedure Manual, it has failed to produce any documents responsive to this
13 Request.
14 B. Defendant’s Boilerplate Objections Are Meritless
15 Notwithstanding the plain relevance and discoverability of this request, Defendant responded
16 by way of boilerplate objections. As such objections lack merit, they must be stricken and Defendant
17 ordered to produce further responses and documents.
18 Defendant’s objection that the Request is overbroad and unduly burdensome also lacks merit.
19 “The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work
20 required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent
21 to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the
22 result sought.” West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles (1963) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417 (“The objection
23 of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.”); see also, Columbia
24 Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 (in determining whether the burden is
25 unjust, a weighing process is required where the amount of work is so great and the utility of the
26 information sought so minimal that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the responding party
27 to answer). The responding party is required to make more than a conclusory statement of burden
28 or expense. Coriell v. Super. Ct. (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 487, 492-93.
PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
Here, Defendant has not even attempted to carry either one of its burdens, let alone both of
them. Rather, Defendant merely states conclusory objections based on some undue burden without
further elaboration as the extent of the burden or the potential work involved in answering the
Requests. Defendant’s objections based on the Request being overbroad and unduly burdensome
are without merit.
Defendant’s objections based on the trade secret privilege is an improper objection. See
Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23. If defendant
truly felt the information sought in the Requests is private, proprietary, and/or confidential, it should
have sought a protective order rather than lodging such an objection. (Id; Cal. Code Civ.
10 §2031.060(b).) A party claiming confidentiality protections must show good cause for the need in
11 terms of the protective order. (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th
261, 318.) There must be a showing that the information sought actually contains confidential
12
commercial information (not otherwise known to other in the pertinent field) and that its
13
dissemination would cause injury. (/d.) Truly proprietary information, which is entitled to the law’s
14
protection, is that information which holds independent economic value and is the subject of
15
reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. (Cal. Civ. Code §3426.1(d).) Moreover, defendant fails to
16
recognize that the claim to such privilege may be defeated if the trade secret information is the source
17
of injury. (Cal. Evid. Code §1060, Law Revision Commission Comments (7 Cal.L.Rev.Comm.
18
Reports 1 (1965) (citing Willson v. Super. Ct. (1924) 66 Cal-App.275).) Defendant has failed to
19
meet its burdens to sustain this objection.
20
The Court should order Defendant to provide a Code-compliant response and produce all
21
responsive documents.
22
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
23
All DOCUMENTS from the date of Plaintiff's acquisition of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to the
24
present date that YOU use to evaluate consumer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-
25
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
26
Ml
27
Mt
28
-16-
PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
GM objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. More
specifically, the request would require GM to compile information related to GM world-wide on
every vehicle sold since 2015, none of which are related to this individual lawsuit or the SUBJECT
VEHICLE. GM is unable to identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, or electronically
stored information falling within this category of objection because of the nature of its overbreadth.
GM also objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
privilege and/or work-product doctrine, as this request would also include the documents created in
anticipation of litigation, the legal file of the GM Legal Staff and local counsel. Moreover, this
10 request seeks confidential and proprietary information in the form of GMs internal policies and
11 procedures. Subject to and without waiving these objections, and subject to the entry of an
12 appropriate protective order, GM will produce the applicable policy and procedure documents.
13 LEGAL _ARGUMENT_SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO
14 REQUEST NO. 23:
15 This request is similar to Request for Production No. 20. This request seeks documents used
16 by Defendant to evaluate consumer requests for repurchase under Song-Beverly. Again, prior to
17 filing suit, Plaintiff contacted Defendant directly to complain about the Vehicle, but Defendant
18 declined to repurchase it. For the reasons set forth supra regarding Request for Production No. 20,
19 the Court should order Defendant to provide a further Code-compliant response to this Request and
20 produce all the responsive documents.
21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:
22 All DOCUMENTS from the date of Plaintiff's acquisition of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to the
23 present date which evidence, describe, refer or relate to procedures by YOU for the handling of
24 complaints by consumers regarding vehicles manufactured or distributed by YOU.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:
25
GM objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. More
26
specifically, the request would require GM to compile information related to GM world-wide on
27
every vehicle sold since 2015, none of which are related to this individual lawsuit or the SUBJECT
28
-17-
PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)
VEHICLE. GM is unable to identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, or electronically
stored information falling within this category of objection because of the nature of its overbreadth.
GM also objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
privilege and/or work-product doctrine, as this request would also include the documents created in
anticipation of litigation, the legal file of the GM Legal St
Preview
JOURNEY LAW GROUP, INC. Guy Mizrahi, Esq. (SBN 220930) Arya Malek, Esq. (SBN 325782) 1762 Westwood Blvd., Suite 260 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: 424.206.4303 Facsimile: 424.220.7388 E-FILED Attorneys for Plaintiff, DARVETTA FORD 2/26/2020 1:23 PM Superior Court of California County of Fresno By: J. Nelson, Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO, B.F. SISK COURTHOUSE 10 DARVETTA FORD, an individual, Case No. 19CECG02967 11 [Filed: August 15, 2019] 12 Plaintiff, Hon. Alan Simpson 13 Dept. 502 14 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware Limited PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE 15 STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 20, SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 16 inclusive, DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 17 Defendants. DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 18 [Concurrently filed with Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for 19 Production of Documents (Set One) and Declaration of Arya Malek in Support of 20 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of 21 Documents (Set One) and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories 22 (Set One)] 23 Date: May 13, 2020 24 Time: 3:30 p.m. Dept: 502 25 26 Trial: January 4, 2021 27 Ml 28 Ml -l- PLAINTIFF'S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Pursuant to Rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court, Plaintiff DARVETTA FORD (“Plaintiff”) submits the following Separate Statement of Items in Dispute in support of her Motion to Compel Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC’s (“Defendant”) Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All version of the Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual published by YOU and provided to YOUR authorized repair facilities within the state if California effective from Plaintiff's date of purchase of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to the present date. 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 11 GM objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome, 12 particularly with respect to the term time frame and "versions." More specifically, the request would 13 require GM to compile information related to GMs policies on every ve hicle sold in the State of 14 California since 2015, none of which are related to this individual lawsuit or the SUBJECT 15 VEHICLE. This request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 16 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the 17 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and 18 breadth of this request. GM is unable to identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, or 19 electronically stored information falling within this category of objection because of the nature of its 20 overbreadth. GM also objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the 21 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine, as this request would also include the 22 documents created in anticipation of litigation, the legal file of the GM Legal Staff and local counsel. 23 Moreover, this request seeks confidential and proprietary information in the form of GMs internal 24 policies and procedures. Subject to and without waiving these objections, and subject to the entry of 25 an appropriate protective order, GM will produce the applicable Warranty Policy and Procedure 26 manual. 27 Mt 28 Mt -2- PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) LEGAL ARGUMENT_SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: A. The Requested Documents Are Relevant and Necessary for Trial Preparatio This request seeks the Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual Defendant provides to its authorized repair facilities that outlines the policies and procedures governing warranty repair visits. The manual is within the scope of discovery because it is probative of Defendant’s good faith compliance with Song-Beverly, including the replace or refund obligation, express warranty provisions and the implied warranty of merchantability. Civil Code §§ 1791.1, 1793.2, 1794. Defendant’s boilerplate objections, addressed below, provide no basis to withhold the manual. Despite Plaintiff's proposal to enter of the Los Angeles County Model Protective Order, Defendant 10 has still refused to produce its Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual relating to the subject HT vehicle. 12 B. Relevance of the Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual 13 Plaintiff alleges that the subject vehicle suffers from defects to the engine system that 14 substantially impair its use and value and that Defendant was unable to repair after a reasonable 15 number of repair attempts. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant’s failure to comply with Song- 16 Beverly by not repurchasing the vehicle was in bad faith, thereby subjecting Defendant to a civil 17 penalty. 18 The Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual, which is provided by Defendant to its 19 authorized repair facilities and outlines the policies and procedures to be followed by those facilities 20 with respect to warranty repair visits, will shed light on how the repair facilities treat and handle 21 repair visits. It will show how the dealerships know what is covered by Defendant’s express warranty 22 and how to submit warranty claims. It will also detail any instructions from Defendant to its 23 dealerships regarding “lemon law” related issues (as the “lemon law” is implicated by repeat visits 24 to the dealership). It will further detail any instructions from Defendant to the dealerships regarding 25 how to handle repeat visits for the same complaint. For example, these documents will show how 26 Defendant instructs its dealerships to proceed when there are repeated problems, such as those 27 experienced by Plaintiff. 28 3- PLAINTIFF'S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) In addition, the Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual is relevant to Defendant’s civil penalty liability. Under Song-Beverly, a “manufacturer has an affirmative duty to replace a vehicle or to make restitution to the buyer if the manufacturer is unable to repair the new vehicle after a reasonable number of repair attempts...” Lukather v. General Motors, LLC (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1050. A willful failure to comply with that duty exposes the manufacturer to civil penalty liability. Civil Code §1794(c). In Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 190 Cal.App.4th 1097, the evidence established that the vehicle manufacturer maintained a policy of requiring a part to be replaced or adjusted before it was deemed a “repair attempt” under the lemon law. The evidence also showed that the manufacturer refused to find a “repair attempt” where a mechanic was unable 10 to diagnose the problem. Orege/, 90 Cal.App.4" at 1103-1105. The court found that those policies 11 and procedures were sufficient to establish a finding of willfulness. Jd. 1104-1105 (affirming finding 12 of willfulness and imposition of civil penalty where evidence showed that defendant “adopted 13 internal policies that erected hidden obstacles to the ability of an unwary consumer to obtains redress 14 under the Act”). Similarly, in Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th. 1191, 1199, the 15 California Supreme Court found that Ford’s buyback program was “structured precisely to short- 16 circuit lemon law claims,” entitling plaintiff to punitive damages. 17 Here, Plaintiff is entitled to discovery relating to Defendant’s policies regarding handling 18 warranty repairs and vehicle repurchases. To that end, Defendant’s warranty policies manual and 19 related documents will illustrate whether Defendant instituted warranty policies, procedures or 20 practices that “short-circuit” consumer protections under Song-Beverly similar to the Defendant 21 manufacturer in Oregel. 22 C. Defendant’s Boilerplate Objections Are Meritles: 23 Defendant’s objection that the Request is overbroad and unduly burdensome lacks merit. 24 “The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work 25 required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent 26 to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the 27 result sought.” West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles (1963) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417 (“The objection 28 of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.”); see also, Columbia ~4. PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 (in determining whether the burden is unjust, a weighing process is required where the amount of work is so great and the utility of the information sought so minimal that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the responding party to answer). The responding party is required to make more than a conclusory statement of burden or expense. Coriell v. Super. Ct. (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 487, 492-93. Here, Defendant has not even attempted to carry either one of its burdens, let alone both of them. Rather, Defendant merely states conclusory objections based on some undue burden without further elaboration as the extent of the burden or the potential work involved in answering the Requests. Defendant’s objections based on the Request being overbroad and unduly burdensome are without merit. 10 Defendant’s objection that this Request is vague and ambiguous is also improper. A party 11 objecting to discovery requests as vague and ambiguous has the burden to show such vagueness or 12 ambiguity and, in responding to discovery requests, should exercise reason and common sense to 13 attribute ordinary definitions to terms and phrases utilized in the discovery sought. “Indeed, where 14 the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper 15 solution is to provide an appropriate response.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. 16 Courts do not look favorably upon the use of boilerplate objections such as “vague and ambiguous: 17 and will not typically sustain such objections. See, Standon Co., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1990)225 18 Cal.App.3rd 898, 903 (noting that an objection of “vague, ambiguous and unintelligible” to a request 19 for “any and all bills, statements and invoices” may be treated as a “nuisance” objection exposing 20 the responding party to sanctions); see also, Manzetti v. Super Ct. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 373, 377. 21 Defendant’s objections based on the trade secret privilege is an improper objection. See 22 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23. If defendant 23 truly felt the information sought in the Requests is private, proprietary, and/or confidential, it should 24 have sought a protective order rather than lodging such an objection. (Id; Cal. Code Civ. 25 §2031.060(b).) A party claiming confidentiality protections must show good cause for the need in 26 terms of the protective order. (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 27 261, 318.) There must be a showing that the information sought actually contains confidential 28 commercial information (not otherwise known to other in the pertinent field) and that its ~5- PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) dissemination would cause injury. (Jd.) Truly proprietary information, which is entitled to the law’s protection, is that information which holds independent economic value and is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. (Cal. Civ. Code §3426.1(d).) Moreover, defendant fails to recognize that the claim to such privilege may be defeated if the trade secret information is the source of injury. (Cal. Evid. Code §1060, Law Revision Commission Comments (7 Cal.L.Rev.Comm. Reports 1 (1965) (citing Willson v. Super. Ct. (1924) 66 Cal.App.275).) Defendant has failed to meet its burdens to sustain this objection. The Court should order Defendant to provide a Code-compliant response and produce all responsive documents 10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 11 A copy of the Workshop Manual specifying diagnosis and repair procedures for vehicles that 12 are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 14 GM responds that shop manuals for various model years and vehicles are as equally available 15 to all parties and can be obtained by writing to Helm, Incorporated, Publications Division, Post Office 16 Box 07150, Detroit Michigan 48207, toll free telephone (800) 782-4356. 17 LEGAL ARGUMENT SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO 18 REQUEST NO. 11: 19 This Request seeks production of Defendant’s Workshop Manual. The Workshop Manual 20 contains all the diagnostic and repair procedures for the subject vehicle. Defendant provides it to its 21 repair facilities to guide the service technicians on how to diagnose and fix defects in the vehicles. 22 Such information is clearly relevant to the instant matter insofar as it may provide insight into how 23 Defendant's repair facilities are to handle repairs and diagnose problems. The requested documents 24 are also probative to show the defects contained in the vehicle and whether Defendant’s technicians 25 followed proper instructions in attempting to repair them. These documents will further assist 26 Plaintiffs expert in rendering opinions as to whether Defendant’s recommended repairs are 27 sufficient to actually fix the defects in the vehicle. 28 6- PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) If the information sought “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial or facilitating settlement, its discovery is permissible.” Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611. Any question as to discoverability is resolved in favor of allowing discovery. Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119. The requested documents are also relevant to the issues related to Defendant's good faith compliance with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, including breach of the express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability. Civil Code § 1791.1, 1793.2, 1794; e.g. Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, 1198, 1199 [court in Song-Beverly Act litigation admitted evidence of Ford's corporate policies and practices regarding reacquisition of vehicles and issuance 10 of credits for trade-ins]; Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1104- 11 1105 [internal company policies that demonstrate hidden obstacles for consumer to obtain redress 12 are admissible]. 13 The scope of discovery includes those documents identified above concerning similar defects 14 experienced by other customers. See Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143- 15 144, 153 [evidence of special service bulletins issued before plaintiff bought his truck and evidence 16 of similar transmission problems in other trucks were relevant and admissible]; Doppes v. Bentley 17 Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973, 978-979, 986 [documents of warranty complaints, 18 service histories, and employee records concerning the subject defect in all affected vehicles and the 19 company's responses and instructions re: cure were discoverable and relevant to issue of Defendant's 20 good faith treatment of the problem]. 21 The Court should order Defendant to provide a Code-compliant response and produce all 22 responsive documents. 23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 24 All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern diagnosis and/or repair procedures for 25 any of the complaints reported by Plaintiff to YOUR authorized repair facilities regarding the 26 SUBJECT VEHICLE at any time (this Request includes, but is not limited to, all DOCUMENTS 27 which describe, outline, detail, or otherwise specify diagnostic and repair procedures used by 28 Defendant's technicians such as technical service bulletins, recall notices, special service messages, aye PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) campaign bulletins, diagnostic flow charts, diagnostic trouble code or fault code diagnosis keys, power point presentations, internal investigation reports, field reports, causal factor analyses, failed component analyses, and/or any other DOCUMENT which refers, relates to or concerns the repairs performed by Defendant's technicians). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: GM objects to this request lacks the specificity dictated by the Code of Civil procedure and is vague and ambiguous. GM objects because this request seeks documents that are irrelevant and this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. GM also objects as the request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive. For example, this request is so 10 broad that it would encompass a hand-written note between two employees asking whether a repair 11 order has been logged, which has nothing to do with this lawsuit. This request violates Calcor Space 12 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether 13 Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and 14 incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this request. GM is unable to identify with particularity 15 any document, tangible thing, or electronically stored information falling within this category of 16 objection because of the nature of its overbreadth. GM also objects to the extent this request seeks 17 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. In addition, GM objects to this request to the 18 extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine, 19 as this request would also include the documents created in anticipation of litigation, the legal file of 20 the GM Legal Staff and local counsel. Subject to and without waiving any objections, GM will 21 comply in part and refers Plaintiff to any incidentally obtained repair orders, the Global Warranty 22 Vehicle History Printout, and any Service Request Activity Report(s). GMs investigation and 23 discovery are continuing. GM reserves the right to supplement or amend this response during the 24 course of this proceeding. 25 Mt 26 Mt 27 Ml 28 Mt -8- PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) LEGAL ARGUMENT SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: Similar to Request for Production No. 11, this Request seeks documents related to diagnostic and repair procedures for the complaints reported by Plaintiff to Defendant’s authorized repair facilities. For the reasons set forth supra regarding Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 11, the Court should order Defendant to provide a Code-compliant Response and produce all responsive documents to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 10 All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern any technical service bulletin issued, or 11 in the process of being issued for vehicles that are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT 12 VEHICLE (this Request includes, but is not limited to, all documents giving rise to the issuance of 13 the technical service bulletins and the technical service bulletins themselves). 14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 15 GM objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous. GM also objects as the request is 16 overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, self-serving, and seeks documents that are irrelevant and 17 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request asks for stored 18 information for every GM vehicle GM has ever made, without any temporal or geographical limit. 19 Those vehicles have nothing to do with this individual lawsuit or the SUBJECT VEHICLE. This 20 request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly 22 Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this 23 request. GM is unable to identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, or electronically 24 stored information falling within this category of objection because of the nature of its overbreadth. 25 GM also objects to the extent this request seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. 26 In addition, GM objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney- 27 client privilege and/or work-product doctrine, as this request would also include the documents 28 created in anticipation of litigation, the legal file of the GM Legal Staff and local counsel. Subject to PLAINTIFF'S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) and without waiving this objection, GM will comply in part and produce any Service Request Activity Report(s), and a list of technical service bulletins related to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. LEGAL ARGUMENT SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16: A. The Requested Documents Are Relevant and Necessary for Trial Preparation Plaintiff claims that the subject vehicle suffers from substantial engine defects that Defendant is aware of and has been unable to repair. As part of the investigation, Plaintiff seeks all applicable recall notices and technical service bulletins (TSBs) that apply to the vehicle in order to determine if one or more of the defects which afflict the subject vehicle is addressed by or covered by the recall 10 or service bulletins. Recalls and TSBs are documents published by manufacturers, such as Defendant, that affirm 11 their knowledge of a widespread problem and propose potential diagnoses and repair procedures for 12 those defects. The existence of TSBs and recalls, including the documents giving rise to their 13 publication, demonstrate Defendant’s knowledge that a well-known problem exists. Moreover, 14 widespread defects are often difficult to diagnose and repair which results in manufacturers routinely 15 publishing updated bulletins and recalls based on continued review and assessment by the 16 manufacturers. These documents demonstrate that Defendant knew it lacked a proper fix for the 17 defects in Plaintiff's vehicle and nevertheless refused to repurchase it. 18 In truth, Defendant had ready electronic access to reports giving rise to any defects and could 19 produce an electronic copy of such report without significant burden or effort. Defendant has 20 produced the indexes related to this Request. This request seeks the TSBs themselves and all 21 documents and investigations that gave rise to the TSBs. However, Defendant merely produced 22 TSB/Recall indexes. 23 Because the standards of relevance during discovery are broader than those of admissibility 24 at trial, defendant must, under Donlen, produce all responsive documents, notwithstanding the fact 25 that they may involve vehicles other than plaintiff's vehicle. Norton v. Superior Court (1994) 24 26 Cal.App.4th 1750, 1760-1761 (an admissible document is necessarily discoverable). 27 28 -10- PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) The requested documents are relevant to the issues related to Defendant's good faith compliance with Song-Beverly, including breach of the express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability. (Civil Code §§ 1791.1, 1793.2, 1794; e.g. Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, 1198, 1199 [court in Song-Beverly Act litigation admitted evidence of Ford's corporate policies and practices regarding reacquisition of vehicles and issuance of credits for trade-ins]; Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1104-1105 [internal company policies that demonstrate hidden obstacles for consumer to obtain redress are admissible].) B. Defendant’s Response is Improper The party to whom a production demand is sent must respond by: (1) a statement that the 10 party will comply; (2) a statement that the party is lacks the ability to comply with the particular 11 demand despite a diligent search and reasonable inquiry; or, (3) an objection to all or part of the 12 demand. If only a portion of the demand is objectionable, the response must contain an agreement 13 to comply or specify that it is unable to do so and why. C.C.P. § 2031.230, 240(a). Moreover, full 14 and proper compliance requires that the documents subject to production actually be produced in the normal course of business and/or sorted to correspond with the categories of the document demand. 15 C.C.P. § 2031.280(a). Defendant’s Response fails to comply with these Requirements. 16 C. Defendant’s Boilerplate Objections Are Meritles: 17 Defendant’s objection that the Request is overbroad and unduly burdensome also lacks merit. 18 “The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work 19 required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent 20 to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the 21 result sought.” West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles (1963) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417 (“The objection 22 of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.”); see also, Columbia 23 Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 (in determining whether the burden is 24 unjust, a weighing process is required where the amount of work is so great and the utility of the 25 information sought so minimal that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the responding party 26 to answer). The responding party is required to make more than a conclusory statement of burden 27 or expense. Coriell v. Super. Ct. (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 487, 492-93. 28 -ll- PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Here, Defendant has not even attempted to carry either one of its burdens, let alone both of them. Rather, Defendant merely states conclusory objections based on some undue burden without further elaboration as the extent of the burden or the potential work involved in answering the Requests. Defendant’s objections based on the Request being overbroad and unduly burdensome are without merit. Defendant’s objections based on the trade secret privilege is an improper objection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23. If defendant truly felt the information sought in the Requests is private, proprietary, and/or confidential, it should have sought a protective order rather than lodging such an objection. (Id. Cal. Code Civ. 10 §2031.060(b).) A party claiming confidentiality protections must show good cause for the need in 11 terms of the protective order. (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 12 261, 318.) There must be a showing that the information sought actually contains confidential 13 commercial information (not otherwise known to other in the pertinent field) and that its 14 dissemination would cause injury. (/d.) Truly proprietary information, which is entitled to the law’s 15 protection, is that information which holds independent economic value and is the subject of 16 reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. (Cal. Civ. Code §3426.1(d).) Moreover, defendant fails to 17 recognize that the claim to such privilege may be defeated if the trade secret information is the source 18 of injury. (Cal. Evid. Code §1060, Law Revision Commission Comments (7 Cal.L.Rev.Comm. 19 Reports 1 (1965) (citing Willson v. Super. Ct. (1924) 66 Cal.App.275).) Defendant has failed to 20 meet its burdens to sustain this objection. 21 The Court should order Defendant to provide a Code-compliant response and produce all responsive documents. 23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: 24 All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern any recalls issued, or in the process of 25 being issued for vehicles that are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE (this 26 Request includes, but is not limited to, all documents giving rise to the issuance of the recalls and 27 the recalls themselves). 28 Mt _ PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: GM objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous. GM also objects as the request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, self-serving, and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request asks for stored information for every GM vehicle GM has ever made, without any temporal or geographical limit. Those vehicles have nothing to do with this individual lawsuit or the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 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 10 request. GM is unable to identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, or electronically 11 stored information falling within this category of objection because of the nature of its overbreadth. 12 GM also objects to the extent this request seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. 13 In addition, GM objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney- 14 client privilege and/or work-product doctrine, as this request would also include the documents 1S created in anticipation of litigation, the legal file of the GM Legal Staff and local counsel. Subject to 16 and without waiving this objection, GM will comply in part and produce any Service Request 17 Activity Report(s), and a list of recalls related to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 18 LEGAL _ARGUMENT_SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO 19 REQUEST NO. 17: 20 For the reasons set forth supra regarding Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 16, the court 21 should order Defendant to provide a Code-compliant Response and produce all responsive 22 documents to this Request. 23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 24 All DOCUMENTS which refer, relate to or concern the handling of repeat complaints by 25 customers regarding their vehicles. 26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: GM objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome, 27 particularly with respect to the terms "refer," and "relate to." More specifically, the request would 28 -13- PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) require GM to compile information related to GM world-wide on every vehicle sold since 2015, none of which are related to this individual lawsuit or the SUBJECT VEHICLE. GM is unable to identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, or electronically stored information falling within this category of objection because of the nature of its overbreadth. GM also objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine, as this request would also include the documents created in anticipation of litigation, the legal file of the GM Legal Staff and local counsel. Moreover, this request seeks confidential and proprietary information in the form of GMs internal policies and procedures. Subject to and without waiving these objections, and subject to the entry of an appropriate protective order, GM will produce the applicable policy and procedure documents. 10 LEGAL ARGUMENT _ SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO 11 REQUEST NO. 20: 12 A. The Requested Documents Are Relevant and Necessary for Trial Preparation 13 This request seeks Defendant’s documents regarding the handling of repeat complaints 14 regarding vehicles. It is essentially looking for documents which outline and describe how 15 Defendant expects its agents and employees to handle situations involving repeat complaints 16 regarding vehicles. Prior to the commencement of the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff contacted Defendant 17 directly on three separate occasions to seek assistance with her Vehicle in light of the ongoing defects 18 he was experiencing. See Malek Decl., { 12. In response, Defendant did not offer to repurchase the 19 Vehicle. The information sought in this Request will shed light on precisely what Defendant 20 reviewed, if anything, and how it handles repeat complaints. At a minimum, the discovery will 21 provide insight into the reasons why Defendant decided against repurchasing the subject vehicle 22 pursuant to Song-Beverly. 23 Under Song-Beverly, if Plaintiff establishes that Defendant willfully failed to comply with 24 any obligations under the act, then Plaintiff is entitled to civil penalty damages. Civ. Code §1794(d); 25 Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1104. Moreover, while 26 Defendant may claim it believed, in good faith, it was not obligated to repurchase Plaintiff's vehicle, 27 this Request will shed light on such claim of good faith and seeks to assess what Defendant knew 28 -14- PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) and why Defendant failed to act. Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 186 (“A decision made without the use of reasonably available information germane to that decision is not a reasonable, good faith decision.”) Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to discovery relating to Defendant’s policies, procedures and practices regarding repeat complaints by customers regarding their vehicles. See Oregel, 90 Cal.App.4th at 1105 (evidence that Defendant has “adopted internal policies that erected hidden obstacles of the ability of any unwary consumer to obtain redress under the Act” may support a finding of willfulness to support a civil penalty). See also Lukather v. General Motors (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1051-52 (holding evidence of delay and active discouragement from pursuing a 10 remedy under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was sufficient to support a finding of Il willfulness and civil penalty damages). Despite Defendant’s contention that it will produce the 12 Service Policies and Procedure Manual, it has failed to produce any documents responsive to this 13 Request. 14 B. Defendant’s Boilerplate Objections Are Meritless 15 Notwithstanding the plain relevance and discoverability of this request, Defendant responded 16 by way of boilerplate objections. As such objections lack merit, they must be stricken and Defendant 17 ordered to produce further responses and documents. 18 Defendant’s objection that the Request is overbroad and unduly burdensome also lacks merit. 19 “The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work 20 required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent 21 to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the 22 result sought.” West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles (1963) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417 (“The objection 23 of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.”); see also, Columbia 24 Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 (in determining whether the burden is 25 unjust, a weighing process is required where the amount of work is so great and the utility of the 26 information sought so minimal that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the responding party 27 to answer). The responding party is required to make more than a conclusory statement of burden 28 or expense. Coriell v. Super. Ct. (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 487, 492-93. PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Here, Defendant has not even attempted to carry either one of its burdens, let alone both of them. Rather, Defendant merely states conclusory objections based on some undue burden without further elaboration as the extent of the burden or the potential work involved in answering the Requests. Defendant’s objections based on the Request being overbroad and unduly burdensome are without merit. Defendant’s objections based on the trade secret privilege is an improper objection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23. If defendant truly felt the information sought in the Requests is private, proprietary, and/or confidential, it should have sought a protective order rather than lodging such an objection. (Id; Cal. Code Civ. 10 §2031.060(b).) A party claiming confidentiality protections must show good cause for the need in 11 terms of the protective order. (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 318.) There must be a showing that the information sought actually contains confidential 12 commercial information (not otherwise known to other in the pertinent field) and that its 13 dissemination would cause injury. (/d.) Truly proprietary information, which is entitled to the law’s 14 protection, is that information which holds independent economic value and is the subject of 15 reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. (Cal. Civ. Code §3426.1(d).) Moreover, defendant fails to 16 recognize that the claim to such privilege may be defeated if the trade secret information is the source 17 of injury. (Cal. Evid. Code §1060, Law Revision Commission Comments (7 Cal.L.Rev.Comm. 18 Reports 1 (1965) (citing Willson v. Super. Ct. (1924) 66 Cal-App.275).) Defendant has failed to 19 meet its burdens to sustain this objection. 20 The Court should order Defendant to provide a Code-compliant response and produce all 21 responsive documents. 22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: 23 All DOCUMENTS from the date of Plaintiff's acquisition of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to the 24 present date that YOU use to evaluate consumer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song- 25 Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. 26 Ml 27 Mt 28 -16- PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: GM objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. More specifically, the request would require GM to compile information related to GM world-wide on every vehicle sold since 2015, none of which are related to this individual lawsuit or the SUBJECT VEHICLE. GM is unable to identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, or electronically stored information falling within this category of objection because of the nature of its overbreadth. GM also objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine, as this request would also include the documents created in anticipation of litigation, the legal file of the GM Legal Staff and local counsel. Moreover, this 10 request seeks confidential and proprietary information in the form of GMs internal policies and 11 procedures. Subject to and without waiving these objections, and subject to the entry of an 12 appropriate protective order, GM will produce the applicable policy and procedure documents. 13 LEGAL _ARGUMENT_SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO 14 REQUEST NO. 23: 15 This request is similar to Request for Production No. 20. This request seeks documents used 16 by Defendant to evaluate consumer requests for repurchase under Song-Beverly. Again, prior to 17 filing suit, Plaintiff contacted Defendant directly to complain about the Vehicle, but Defendant 18 declined to repurchase it. For the reasons set forth supra regarding Request for Production No. 20, 19 the Court should order Defendant to provide a further Code-compliant response to this Request and 20 produce all the responsive documents. 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: 22 All DOCUMENTS from the date of Plaintiff's acquisition of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to the 23 present date which evidence, describe, refer or relate to procedures by YOU for the handling of 24 complaints by consumers regarding vehicles manufactured or distributed by YOU. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: 25 GM objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. More 26 specifically, the request would require GM to compile information related to GM world-wide on 27 every vehicle sold since 2015, none of which are related to this individual lawsuit or the SUBJECT 28 -17- PLAINTIFF’S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) VEHICLE. GM is unable to identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, or electronically stored information falling within this category of objection because of the nature of its overbreadth. GM also objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine, as this request would also include the documents created in anticipation of litigation, the legal file of the GM Legal St