Motion-Secondary: Lopez -v - General Motors LLC et al Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                KNIGHT LAW GROUP LLP                                                 ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Autc >)
          Roger Kimos (SBN 283163)                                             SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFC >RNIA
          rogerk@knight1aw.com                                                 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN o
                                                                               2/5/2024   “'37   AM
          Phil A Thomas (SBN 248517)
          philt@knightlaw.com
          10250 Constellation Blvd. Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-2250
          Fax: (310) 552-7973


          Attorneys for   Plaintiff,
          ADEMIR LOPEZ
 KOOONG




                                                SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA

10
                                                 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO

11
          ADEMIR LOPEZ,                                          Case No.: CIVSB2220843
                                                                 Unlimited Jurisdiction
12

                           Plaintiff,
13
                                                                 PLAINTIFF’S REPLY         T0
                    VS,                                          DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION T0
14                                                               PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 COMPEL
                                                                 FURTHER RESPONSES T0 FIRST
15
          GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware                         gaggggETlggEFSga‘F/S)IEFENDANT
          L'  d L' b'rt C
               't
                              an d DOES 1
16
          TfinfiSUéfi        116 yincfli‘sliliiny
                                                 ;
                                                                 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, AND
                            ’               ’
                                                                 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
17

18
                           D e fendan S t   .                        .


                                                                 Hearmg  Date: February 13, 2024
                                                                 Hearing Time: 8:30 am.
19                                                               Department: S-28

20                                                               Date Filed: September 20, 2022
                                                                 Trial Date: August 5, 2024
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


                                                             i




               PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION          TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
        I.       SUMMARY OF REPLY
                 Plaintiff    ADEMIR LOPEZ’s                       (“Plaintiff”)         Motion asks            this   Court to compel Defendant

 AWN
        GENERAL MOTORS, LLC (“GM”                                   0r “Defendant”) t0 provide code-compliant responses t0

        Plaintiff’s   Request for Production 0f Documents. As stated in the original motion,                                                   Plaintiff’s


        Requests 16, 19-32, and 37-41 seek documents                             that,   among other things, will help t0               establish facts

 QQUI
        relating to Defendant’s general policies                              and procedures relied upon When handling vehicle

        repurchase 0r replacement requests and calculating repurchase offers, as well as various codes

        used in repair orders and other documents produced by Defendant, and documents relating t0

        consumer complaints and warranty claims made regarding vehicles 0f the same                                                    year,   make and

        model    as Plaintiff’s vehicle.          Defendant              is   in possession      of such documents and                   is    capable 0f
10
        producing them. Moreover,               if Defendant             maintains objections,             it   must “identify with       particularity
11
        any document, tangible thing                .    .    .   to    Which an objection            is        being made.” (Code CiV. Proc.
12
        §2031.240(b)(1).) Defendant’s objections do not obviate                                      its    duty t0 provide Code-compliant
13
        responses, and the Court           is   warranted in granting                 Plaintiff’ s   Motion.
14
                 In Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s                              RFPs    16,    19-32, and 37-41             it    stated that     no
15
        documents would be produced. However,                                 after   meeting and conferring Defendant stated that                       it

16
        would be Willing       t0   produce documents responsive t0 some 0f these RFPs subject t0 a protective
17
        order. Plaintiff signed Defendant’s protective order but                             Defendant has not subsequently produced
18
        any confidential documents.
19
        II.      ARGUMENT
20
                A.           There   is     00d         ause for this Motion
21
                There   is   good cause         for this          Motion because            Plaintiff      were forced         to file    it    even   after

22
        numerous attempts           to    meet and           confer. Defendant rarely provides Code-compliant discovery

23
        responses Without a Court Order.                T0        satisfy their statutory obligations, Plaintiff were first required

24      t0    make   a “reasonable and           good        faith attempt at            an informal resolution.” (Code CiV. Proc. §§

25      2016.040, 2031.3 10, subd. (b)(2).) Plaintiffs efforts t0 meet and confer satisfy                                         this standard.       As
26      stated in Plaintiff s underlying           motion              t0 compel, Plaintiff sent            two        detailed letters t0 Defendant

27      regarding Defendant’s deficient responses, along with an email requesting to meet and confer Via

28      Videoconference.

                                                                                 -1-

               PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION                                   TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL