Party Discovery: Rodriguez et al -v - General Motors, LLC et al Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Tionna Dolin (SBN 299010)
                                                                                       ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Aut< >)
             Email: tdolinnglpattorneycom                                              SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFC RNIA
             Ebony Randolph (SBN 337135)                                               COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN o
             Email: erandolph@slpatt0rnev.com                                          10/26/2023 4:57 PM
             Strategic Legal Practices, APC
 4;          1888 Century Park East, 19th Floor
             Los Angeles, CA 90067
             Telephone: (3 10) 929-4933
             Facsimile: (3 10) 943—383 8


             Attorneys for Plaintiffs
             MANUEL RODRIGUEZ AND LUCIA DE LA ROSA DAVILA
 KOOOQONUI




                               SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                   FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
             MANUEL RODRIGUEZ AND LUCIA DE                 Case N0.: CIVSB2228894
11           LA ROSA DAVILA
                            Plaintiffs,                    Case Initiated: December           30,   2022
12

13                  VS.                                    Hon. Winston Keh
                                                           Dept. S33
14
             GENERAL MOTORS, LLC;         and   DOES   1   PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
15           through 10, inclusive,                        PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
                                                           FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
16
                            Defendants.                    REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
17
                                                           DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND REQUEST
                                                           FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS FROM
18                                                         DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
                                                                         ’
19                                                         [Plaintiffs       Declaration ofEbony Randolph;
                                                           filed and served, concurrently herewith]
20

21                                                         Date:November          2,   2023
                                                           Time: 8:30 am.
22                                                         Dept: S33

23

24

25

26

27

28

                   PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
                 PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR
                            MONETARY SANCTIONS FROM DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
     I.         INTRODUCTION.
             Defendant        GENERAL MOTORS,               LLC’S (“GM”        or “Defendant”) has failed t0 produce

     further verified, Code-compliant responses, Without boilerplate obj ections,                         and   all   corresponding

     documents, requested in Plaintiffs Manuel Rodriguez and Lucia                    De La Rosa Davila’s (“Plaintiffs”)

     Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFPS”). Indeed,                           GM has not produced all the
     documents      relating to   its   internal investigations into the Transmission Defects in                 2021 Chevrolet

     Silverado 1500 vehicles, including any emails, documents leading up to the decision to issue

     recalls/Technical Service Bulletins (“TSB”s), executive reviews and communications With


     National    Highway Traffic          Safety Administration      (“NTHSA”). This           is all   despite the fact that   GM
10   issued several unsuccessful recalls and             TSBS 0n    Plaintiffs   and other consumers’ vehicles of the

11   same   year,   make, and model.

12           Rather than address the substance 0f Plaintiffs’ arguments,                          GM’s      Opposition makes

13   blanket arguments as t0        why Plaintiffs      should limit their discovery rights. Moreover,                 GM fails to
14   address the merits of each          RFP   at issue herein.    In fact,   When each 0f the RFPS            at issue herein is


15   reviewed,     it is   clear that the requested     documents simply were not produced. As such,                     Plaintiffs


16   respectfully request that the Court order             GM     t0 provide a further        Code-compliant response to

17   Plaintiffs’    Request for Production of Documents, Set One, produce the documents requested

18   therein,   and issue monetary sanctions against           GM.

19   II.        ARGUMENT.
20           A. Plaintiffs Did Meet and Confer with                 GM in Good Faith.
21           Defendant’s argument that “Plaintiffs Failed t0 Sufficiently Meet and Confer With                               GM in
22   Good    Faith” (Defendant’s Opposition at p. 4)                is   without merit. Defendant's             own    Opposition

23   gives the     lie to this   argument. Specifically, the Opposition             fails to   address Plaintiffs’ extensive

24   meet and confer process, Which included              Plaintiffs’ letters t0   Defendant on June            7,   2023, August

25   23, 2023,      August 30, 2023, and         Plaintiffs’   follow-up email 0n August 23, 2023, which                       GM
26   ignored and continues to ignore in          its   Opposition. (See Opp. at pp. 4:4-24). Plaintiffs” good faith

27   meet-and-confer efforts are summarized in paragraphs 28 through 33 of the Declaration of

28   Rosario Stoliker and incorporated herein by reference. (Rosario Stoliker Declaration (“Stoliker
             PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
           PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR
                       MONETARY SANCTIONS FROM DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS, LLC