Preview
Tionna Dolin (SBN 299010)
1 tdolin@slpattorney.com
Rebecca E. Neubauer (SBN 333904)
2 rneubauer@slpattorney.com
Jami I. Littles (SBN 199538)
3 jlittles@slpattorney.com
STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
4 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1888 Century Park East, 19th Floor
5 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 929-4900
6 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
MELISSA CLAIRE TENHET
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN
11
12 MELISSA CLAIRE TENHET, Case No. BCV-22-101476
Case Initiated: June 22, 2022
13 Plaintiff,
14 vs. Assigned To: Hon. Bernard C. Barmann, Jr.
Department: H
15 GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO
16 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR
17 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET
18 ONE
19 [Filed concurrently with Memorandum of
Points and Authorities in Support Thereof,
20 Declaration of Jami I. Littles, Separate
Statement and [Proposed] Order]
21
22 Date: April 14, 2023
Time: 8:30 a.m.
23 Dept.: H
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, DEFENDANT, AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 14, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department H of the
3 Kern County Superior Court, located at 1215 Truxtun Avenue, CA 93301, Plaintiff MELISSA
4 CLAIRE TENHET (“Plaintiff”) will, and hereby does, move for an order to strike Defendant
5 General Motors, LLC’s (“Defendant”) meritless objections and compel further responses to
6 Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One Nos. 1, 7, 10, 18, 30, 35, 38, 42, 54,
7 59, 63, 107, 112, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 138, 141, 142, 143, 144
8 and 145 ) (collectively, the “Requests”) and production of all responsive documents
9 corresponding to those Requests.
10 This Motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.310,
11 128(a)(4), and 2023.030(a), on the grounds that Defendant has failed to provide adequate
12 responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests, which seek documents directly relevant to their Song-Beverly
13 Consumer Warranty Act claims, and failed to meet and confer with Plaintiffs in good faith.
14 Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that that 2018 GMC Terrain vehicle, which was
15 manufactured and distributed by Defendant, suffers from widespread defects—including the
16 Transmission Defects and Infotainment System Defects—and that Defendant has been unable
17 to repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts. Plaintiff also alleges that
18 Defendant knew that the vehicle suffered from prevalent defects, but nevertheless refused to
19 repurchase the vehicle in willful violation of the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff further alleges that
20 Defendant knew that the vehicle and its engine and cooling system, among other things, are
21 defective and susceptible to sudden, premature, and catastrophic failure, but failed to disclose
22 this fact to Plaintiffs at the time of sale and thereafter.
23 Accordingly, the Requests seek documents relating to Defendant’s internal investigation
24 and analysis of the Transmission Defects and Infotainment System Defects plaguing Plaintiff’s
25 vehicle and establishing that Defendant previously knew of such Defects but nevertheless
26 refused to repurchase the vehicle.
27
28 1
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
1 To prove these allegations, Plaintiff requested the following categories of documents
2 (some of which may overlap):
3 1. Documents concerning the Subject Vehicle, defined as the “2018 GMC Terrain,
vehicle identification number 3GKALMEV1JL173915” (see Request Nos. 1, 7, and
4
10 [“Subject Vehicle Discovery”]);
5
2. Documents concerning the Transmission Defects and Infotainment Defects in other
6 2018 GMC Terrain vehicles with the same transmission and infotainment system as
the Subject Vehicle, including internal investigations, emails, and other ESI (see
7 Request Nos. 18, 30, 35, 38, 42, 54, 59, 63, 107, 112, 118, 138, 141, 142, 143, 144 and
8 145) [“Internal Investigation Discovery”]), which are discoverable under Donlen v.
Ford Motor Co. 217 Cal. App. 4th at 143-44 (2013), and Santana v. FCA US, LLC
9 56 Cal. App. 5th 334 (2020), among other cases cited in the supporting papers;
10 3. TSBs, campaigns, recalls, and communications with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Agency (“NHTSA”) related to the transmission defects and infotainment
11 system defects (see Request Nos. 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133
12 and 134 [“Implementational Discovery”]), which are discoverable under Santana,
56 Cal. App. 5th at 343; and
13
4. Defendant’s Lemon Law policies and procedures (see Request Nos. 108, 112 and
14 118 [“Policies and Procedures Discovery”]), which are discoverable under Jensen v.
BMW of N. Am., Inc., 35 Cal. App. 4th 112 (1995), and Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of
15
N. Am., Inc., 23 Cal. App. 4th 174 (1994), among other cases cited in the supporting
16 papers.
17
Notwithstanding the plain relevance of these documents to Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant’s
18
responses to the Requests at issue consist of “copy-and-paste”, non-code compliant,
19
unresponsive statements and boilerplate objections that attempt to limit the scope of discovery
20
proffered by Plaintiff. Such evasive responses fail to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure,
21
necessitating further responses. Moreover, to date, Defendant has failed to provide e-mails and
22
other electronically stored information (“ESI”) or search protocol, contrary to its obligations
23
under the Discovery Act.
24
In response to Defendant’s abuse of the discovery process, Plaintiff attempted to engage
25
in meet-and-confer efforts with Defendant, including (1) repeated requests to meet and confer
26
on an electronic search protocol to facilitate production of relevant ESI; (2) execution of a
27
protective order to facilitate production of documents and information that Defendant deems
28 2
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
1 “confidential” and/or proprietary; and (3) providing substantive clarification on and justification
2 for the disputed Requests as well as case law supporting its position. Defendant continues to
3 stand by its position that the subject matter of the present action, and thus the information to
4 which Plaintiff is entitled, is limited in scope.
5 Plaintiff seeks an order striking Defendant’s responses and compelling Defendant to
6 produce adequate further verified responses and documents (including emails and ESI, to which
7 Defendant has waived any and all objections pursuant to section 2031.210(d)) within ten (10)
8 calendar days of the Court’s order.
9 The Motion is based upon this Notice, Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities
10 in support thereof, Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, the Declaration of Jami I. Littles, the
11 pleadings, and papers on file herein, and upon any other matters that may be presented to the
12 Court at the hearing.
13
14
Dated: January 23, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
15
STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC
16
17
By:
18 REBECCA NEUBAUER
JAMI I. LITTLES
19 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
MELISSA CLAIRE TENHET
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 3
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
3 and not a party to the within action. My business address is Strategic Legal Practices, 1888
Century Park East, 19th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067.
4
On January 23, 2023, I caused to be served the document(s) described as:
5
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
6 PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
7
on the interested parties in this action by sending [ ] the original [or] [] a true copy thereof
8 [] to interested parties as follows [or] [ ] as stated on the attached service list:
9 THE ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC.
1576 N. Batavia St., Suite A
10 Orange, CA 92867
Eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com
11 marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com
rkay@erskinelaw.com
12
[ ] BY MAIL (ENCLOSED IN A SEALED ENVELOPE): I deposited the envelope(s)
13 for mailing in the ordinary course of business at Los Angeles, California. I am
“readily familiar” with this firm’s practice of collection and processing
14 correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, sealed envelopes are deposited with
the U.S. Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business with postage
15 thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California.
16 [] BY E-MAIL: I hereby certify that this document was served from Los Angeles,
California, by e-mail delivery, as agreed between the parties, on the parties listed
17 herein at their most recent known e-mail address or e-mail of record in this action.
[ ] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I am “readily familiar” with this firm’s practice of
18 collection and processing correspondence for overnight delivery. Under that practice,
overnight packages are enclosed in a sealed envelope with a packing slip attached
19 thereto fully prepaid. The packages are picked up by the carrier at our offices or
delivered by our office to a designated collection site.
20
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21 foregoing is true and correct.
22 Executed this January 23, 2023, at Los Angeles, California.
23
24
25 Grigori Sahakyan
gsahakyan@slpattorney.com
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
Tionna Dolin (SBN 299010) 1 tdolin@slpattorney.com Rebecca E. Neubauer (SBN 333904) 2 rneubauer@slpattorney.com Jami I. Littles (SBN 199538) 3 jlittles@slpattorney.com STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES 4 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1888 Century Park East, 19th Floor 5 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 929-4900 6 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, MELISSA CLAIRE TENHET 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN 11 12 MELISSA CLAIRE TENHET, Case No. BCV-22-101476 Case Initiated: June 22, 2022 13 Plaintiff, 14 vs. Assigned To: Hon. Bernard C. Barmann, Jr. Department: H 15 GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO 16 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR 17 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET 18 ONE 19 [Filed concurrently with Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, 20 Declaration of Jami I. Littles, Separate Statement and [Proposed] Order] 21 22 Date: April 14, 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. 23 Dept.: H 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, DEFENDANT, AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 14, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department H of the 3 Kern County Superior Court, located at 1215 Truxtun Avenue, CA 93301, Plaintiff MELISSA 4 CLAIRE TENHET (“Plaintiff”) will, and hereby does, move for an order to strike Defendant 5 General Motors, LLC’s (“Defendant”) meritless objections and compel further responses to 6 Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One Nos. 1, 7, 10, 18, 30, 35, 38, 42, 54, 7 59, 63, 107, 112, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 138, 141, 142, 143, 144 8 and 145 ) (collectively, the “Requests”) and production of all responsive documents 9 corresponding to those Requests. 10 This Motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.310, 11 128(a)(4), and 2023.030(a), on the grounds that Defendant has failed to provide adequate 12 responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests, which seek documents directly relevant to their Song-Beverly 13 Consumer Warranty Act claims, and failed to meet and confer with Plaintiffs in good faith. 14 Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that that 2018 GMC Terrain vehicle, which was 15 manufactured and distributed by Defendant, suffers from widespread defects—including the 16 Transmission Defects and Infotainment System Defects—and that Defendant has been unable 17 to repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts. Plaintiff also alleges that 18 Defendant knew that the vehicle suffered from prevalent defects, but nevertheless refused to 19 repurchase the vehicle in willful violation of the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff further alleges that 20 Defendant knew that the vehicle and its engine and cooling system, among other things, are 21 defective and susceptible to sudden, premature, and catastrophic failure, but failed to disclose 22 this fact to Plaintiffs at the time of sale and thereafter. 23 Accordingly, the Requests seek documents relating to Defendant’s internal investigation 24 and analysis of the Transmission Defects and Infotainment System Defects plaguing Plaintiff’s 25 vehicle and establishing that Defendant previously knew of such Defects but nevertheless 26 refused to repurchase the vehicle. 27 28 1 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 1 To prove these allegations, Plaintiff requested the following categories of documents 2 (some of which may overlap): 3 1. Documents concerning the Subject Vehicle, defined as the “2018 GMC Terrain, vehicle identification number 3GKALMEV1JL173915” (see Request Nos. 1, 7, and 4 10 [“Subject Vehicle Discovery”]); 5 2. Documents concerning the Transmission Defects and Infotainment Defects in other 6 2018 GMC Terrain vehicles with the same transmission and infotainment system as the Subject Vehicle, including internal investigations, emails, and other ESI (see 7 Request Nos. 18, 30, 35, 38, 42, 54, 59, 63, 107, 112, 118, 138, 141, 142, 143, 144 and 8 145) [“Internal Investigation Discovery”]), which are discoverable under Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. 217 Cal. App. 4th at 143-44 (2013), and Santana v. FCA US, LLC 9 56 Cal. App. 5th 334 (2020), among other cases cited in the supporting papers; 10 3. TSBs, campaigns, recalls, and communications with the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency (“NHTSA”) related to the transmission defects and infotainment 11 system defects (see Request Nos. 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133 12 and 134 [“Implementational Discovery”]), which are discoverable under Santana, 56 Cal. App. 5th at 343; and 13 4. Defendant’s Lemon Law policies and procedures (see Request Nos. 108, 112 and 14 118 [“Policies and Procedures Discovery”]), which are discoverable under Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 35 Cal. App. 4th 112 (1995), and Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of 15 N. Am., Inc., 23 Cal. App. 4th 174 (1994), among other cases cited in the supporting 16 papers. 17 Notwithstanding the plain relevance of these documents to Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant’s 18 responses to the Requests at issue consist of “copy-and-paste”, non-code compliant, 19 unresponsive statements and boilerplate objections that attempt to limit the scope of discovery 20 proffered by Plaintiff. Such evasive responses fail to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure, 21 necessitating further responses. Moreover, to date, Defendant has failed to provide e-mails and 22 other electronically stored information (“ESI”) or search protocol, contrary to its obligations 23 under the Discovery Act. 24 In response to Defendant’s abuse of the discovery process, Plaintiff attempted to engage 25 in meet-and-confer efforts with Defendant, including (1) repeated requests to meet and confer 26 on an electronic search protocol to facilitate production of relevant ESI; (2) execution of a 27 protective order to facilitate production of documents and information that Defendant deems 28 2 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 1 “confidential” and/or proprietary; and (3) providing substantive clarification on and justification 2 for the disputed Requests as well as case law supporting its position. Defendant continues to 3 stand by its position that the subject matter of the present action, and thus the information to 4 which Plaintiff is entitled, is limited in scope. 5 Plaintiff seeks an order striking Defendant’s responses and compelling Defendant to 6 produce adequate further verified responses and documents (including emails and ESI, to which 7 Defendant has waived any and all objections pursuant to section 2031.210(d)) within ten (10) 8 calendar days of the Court’s order. 9 The Motion is based upon this Notice, Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities 10 in support thereof, Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, the Declaration of Jami I. Littles, the 11 pleadings, and papers on file herein, and upon any other matters that may be presented to the 12 Court at the hearing. 13 14 Dated: January 23, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 15 STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC 16 17 By: 18 REBECCA NEUBAUER JAMI I. LITTLES 19 Attorneys for Plaintiff, MELISSA CLAIRE TENHET 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 3 and not a party to the within action. My business address is Strategic Legal Practices, 1888 Century Park East, 19th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067. 4 On January 23, 2023, I caused to be served the document(s) described as: 5 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO 6 PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 7 on the interested parties in this action by sending [ ] the original [or] [] a true copy thereof 8 [] to interested parties as follows [or] [ ] as stated on the attached service list: 9 THE ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC. 1576 N. Batavia St., Suite A 10 Orange, CA 92867 Eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com 11 marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com rkay@erskinelaw.com 12 [ ] BY MAIL (ENCLOSED IN A SEALED ENVELOPE): I deposited the envelope(s) 13 for mailing in the ordinary course of business at Los Angeles, California. I am “readily familiar” with this firm’s practice of collection and processing 14 correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, sealed envelopes are deposited with the U.S. Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business with postage 15 thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California. 16 [] BY E-MAIL: I hereby certify that this document was served from Los Angeles, California, by e-mail delivery, as agreed between the parties, on the parties listed 17 herein at their most recent known e-mail address or e-mail of record in this action. [ ] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I am “readily familiar” with this firm’s practice of 18 collection and processing correspondence for overnight delivery. Under that practice, overnight packages are enclosed in a sealed envelope with a packing slip attached 19 thereto fully prepaid. The packages are picked up by the carrier at our offices or delivered by our office to a designated collection site. 20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 21 foregoing is true and correct. 22 Executed this January 23, 2023, at Los Angeles, California. 23 24 25 Grigori Sahakyan gsahakyan@slpattorney.com 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE