Preview
MARY ARENS MCBRIDE, ESQ. (SBN: 282459)
1 ALEXANDRIA O. PAPPAS, ESQ. (SBN 326149)
THE ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC.
2 1592 N. BATAVIA ST., SUITE 1A
ORANGE, CA 92867
3 TEL: (949) 777-6032
FAX: (714) 844-9035
4 eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com
apappas@erskinelaw.com
5
6 Attorneys for Defendant,
7 GENERAL MOTORS LLC
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF KERN
10
MARIA DE JESUS ROSAS PARRA, Case No.: BCV-23-100657
11 Unlimited Jurisdiction
Plaintiff,
12 GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S SEPARATE
vs. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
13 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
14 TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
Limited Liability Company, et al, DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR
15
SANCTIONS
16 Defendants.
Filed Concurrently With:
17 1) Memorandum of Points and Authorities
18 2) Declaration of Alexandria O. Pappas
19 Hearing Date: April 4, 2024
Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.
20 Department: 17
21
22 Date Filed: March 3, 2023
Trial Date: April 1, 2025
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
2 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
3 All of YOUR warranty claims policy and procedure manual(s) from 2022 to the present.
4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
5 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks documents that are
6 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not
7 limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that
8 it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and
9 expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the
10 issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and
11 this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61
12 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly
13 Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this
14 Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade
15 secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this
16 Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-
17 product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
18 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
19 This is a breach of warranty action involving Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2022 Chevrolet
20 Silverado (“Subject Vehicle” or “Silverado”). Plaintiff seeks an order compelling General Motors
21 LLC (“GM”) to withdraw its objections and produce supplemental responses to Request for
22 Production of Document Nos. 16, 19-32, and 37-41, despite having already received information
23 and documents that are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and GM’s agreement to provide further
24 information. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is unnecessary.
25 The discovery requests in question pertain to documents that relate to other vehicles and
26 other warranty claims, which necessarily say nothing about Plaintiff’s vehicle and are not relevant
27 to this litigation. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks all documents concerning GM’s confidential and
28 proprietary policies and procedures. Certainly, Plaintiff should not have free rein to conduct open-
2
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 ended discovery into issues that have no relevance to proving the elements of Plaintiff’s simple
2 breach of warranty action. This is especially true in this case given that the prejudice to and burden
3 on GM to produce these materials greatly outweighs any miniscule benefit that Plaintiff might glean
4 from the documents. Plaintiff’s Motion was made in bad faith.
5 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to substantively meet and confer in good faith as required
6 by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450 and 2025.480. Fortunately, this Court can put an
7 end to Plaintiff’s outrageous demands and abusive discovery practices. Therefore, GM respectfully
8 requests that this Court deny Plaintiff’s request for a court-ordered fishing expedition by denying
9 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in its entirety.
10 The purpose of discovery is to facilitate the trial process, narrow issues in dispute, and
11 change trial from a game of chance and surprise to an orderly process of uncovering actual facts.
12 (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 781). Litigants, however, do not possess unfettered
13 access to all information they seek. (Covell v. Superior Court (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 39, 42-43).
14 A key limitation on a litigant’s right to discovery is that the information sought must be relevant to
15 the issues of the lawsuit. (Nat’l Steel Products Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 476,
16 492-93). Where information sought in discovery does not relate in any way to the issues involved
17 in a lawsuit, the relevance requirement is not met and a court must invoke its broad discretion in
18 supervising the course and scope of discovery to limit the requests at issue. (Covell, supra at 42-
19 43). By exercising this discretion, the courts prevent litigants from abusing the discovery process
20 in hopes of uncovering supporting evidence that the party should have possessed prior to taking
21 legal action or in an attempt to extort a higher settlement. (Id). Code of Civil Procedure section
22 2013.020(a) is also clear that a court “shall” limit the scope of discovery when “it determines that
23 the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the
24 information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . . . .”
25 Plaintiffs may not use “omnibus” descriptions in their requests for documents. (Flora
26 Crane Serv., Inc., v. Super. Ct. of San Francisco (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 767, 786). “The unlimited
27 characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the
28 records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” (Id). When discovery requests are
3
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 grossly overbroad on their face, it is reasonable to infer “an intent to harass and improperly burden.”
2 (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431). As the rule implies, “the discovery
3 process is subject to frequent abuse and, like a cancerous growth, can destroy a meritorious cause
4 or defense . . . [T]his cancer is spreading and judges must become more aggressive in curbing these
5 abuses. Courts must insist discovery devices be used as tools to facilitate litigation rather than as
6 weapons to wage litigation. These tools should be well calibrated; the lancet is to be preferred over
7 the sledge hammer.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216,
8 221, citing Mannino v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776; see also Obregon v. Superior
9 Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431 [noting that “[a]ny discovery request, even an initial one,
10 can be misused in an attempt to generate settlement leverage by creating burden, expense,
11 embarrassment, distraction, etc.”]).
12 The California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2013.010 provides that the information
13 sought must be (1) “not privileged,” (2) “relevant to the subject matter of the action,” and (3) either
14 admissible or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” This case is
15 about this Plaintiff’s repair history alone, and documents relating to other vehicles and design issues
16 simply are not relevant for proving whether GM breached its warranty in this case, or whether GM
17 failed to repair Plaintiff’s vehicle in a reasonable number of repair attempts. Any request outside
18 of this scope will not lead to any admissible evidence, so Plaintiff simply has no reason to make
19 these kinds of requests. Plaintiff’s requests are irrelevant, overbroad, and seek information that has
20 no bearing on Plaintiff’s individual complaints about the Subject Vehicle.
21 With regard to Request for Production Nos. 16, and 19-32, GM is willing to supplement its
22 document production and produce additional documents in this matter, including its Warranty
23 Policy & Procedure Manual and the policies and procedures used to evaluate lemon law claims and
24 repurchase requests in response to Request for Production Nos. 16 and 19-32. Thus, there is nothing
25 for this Court to compel.
26 Moreover, the breadth of Plaintiff’s requests also encompasses production of trade secret
27 material. Under California law, “[t]rade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern,
28 compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that: (1) derives independent
4
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other
2 persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) is the subject of efforts
3 that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” (McGuan v. Endovascular
4 Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988-989 [holding that the trial court did not abuse
5 its discretion in granting a medical device manufacturer’s motion to seal records where [1] the
6 documents discussed the details of defendant’s quality system procedures, complaint handling
7 procedures, device tracking procedures, process validation procedures, and corrective action
8 procedures; [2] the records contain business methods and processes defendant developed to comply
9 with FDA regulations; [3] the value and utility of this information could have application across a
10 range of medical devices; and [4] the records were maintained as confidential and disseminated
11 within defendant’s organization on a limited basis]).
12 Because wholesale disclosure of GM’s internal, confidential materials would cause GM
13 competitive harm as well as harm in the marketplace, GM should not be compelled to produce these
14 confidential, proprietary documents without a heightened showing of the need for the documents
15 to prove Plaintiff’s case. Such a showing has not been made here. 1
16 Given GM’s good-faith effort to fully comply with Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of
17 Documents, there is simply no merit to Plaintiff’s motion. Again, GM has produced a plethora of
18 Bates-labeled documents that are directly responsive to Plaintiff’s requests and agrees to produce
19 further materials pursuant to the entry of a protective order. GM has also demonstrated that it fully
20 responded to, or appropriately objected to Plaintiff’s requests. Accordingly, GM respectfully
21 requests that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for
22 Production of Documents in its entirety.
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
24 All DOCUMENTS which describe the procedures used by YOU for evaluating and
25 responding to complaints by California consumers regarding vehicles YOU manufactured or
26 1
If the Court is not persuaded by GM’s objections regarding the production of trade secret, confidential, and proprietary
information and/or if the parties are unable to agree on the form of a suitable Protective Order, GM reserves its right
27 to file, and will file, a Motion for Protective Order applicable to documents ordered compelled by this Court, if any.
In said Motion for Protective Order, GM will fully address the issue for the need to protect its trade secret, proprietary,
28 and confidential information pursuant to a suitable Protective Order.
5
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 distributed since 2022.
2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
3 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "describe" is overbroad, vague and
4 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that
5 are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is
6 not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this
7 Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably
8 difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the
9 importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with
10 limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53
11 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the
12 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and
13 breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential,
14 proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM
15 further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
16 privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
17 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
18 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
19 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
21 All DOCUMENTS which describe policies, procedures, and/or instructions since 2022 that
22 YOUR employees and agents should follow when evaluating a customer request for a refund of
23 their money paid towards or owed on a motor vehicle manufactured or distributed by YOU.
24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
25 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "describe" is overbroad, vague and
26 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that
27 are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is
28 not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this
6
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably
2 difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the
3 importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with
4 limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53
5 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the
6 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and
7 breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential,
8 proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM
9 further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
10 privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
11 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
12 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
13 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
15 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, or guidelines for determining
16 whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since2022.
17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
18 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "describing" is overbroad, vague and
19 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that
20 are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is
21 not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this
22 Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably
23 difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the
24 importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with
25 limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53
26 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the
27 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and
28 breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential,
7
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM
2 further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
3 privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
4 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
5 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
6 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
8 All training materials regarding the handling of consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase
9 in California since 2022.
10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
11 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "regarding" and "handling" are overbroad,
12 vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks
13 documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
14 evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also
15 objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be
16 unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy,
17 and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law
18 case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court
19 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief
20 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the
21 scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
22 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and
23 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the
24 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
25 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
26 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
27 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
8
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 All training materials for YOUR employees or agents tasked with determining whether a
2 vehicle is eligible or a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2022.
3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
4 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "training materials" and "tasked with
5 determining" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad
6 and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
7 admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action.
8 GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance
9 would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in
10 controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual
11 lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior
12 Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to
13 relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate
14 to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
15 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and
16 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the
17 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
18 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
19 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
20 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:
22 All scripts and flow charts that YOU utilize in handling California consumer requests for a
23 vehicle repurchase or replacement since 2022.
24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:
25 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "utilize" and "handling" are overbroad,
26 vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks
27 documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
28 evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also
9
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be
2 unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy,
3 and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law
4 case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court
5 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief
6 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the
7 scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
8 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and
9 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the
10 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
11 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
12 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
13 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:
15 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining
16 what constitutes a repair presentation to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to
17 the Song-Beverly Act since 2022.
18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:
19 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing," "parameters for determining"
20 and "repair presentation" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it
21 is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
22 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue
23 in this action. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and
24 that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case,
25 the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a
26 simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space
27 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically,
28 whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely
10
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this
2 Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of
3 GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
4 information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents
5 will be produced.
6 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
7 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
8 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
10 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining
11 what constitutes a “non-conformity” to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to
12 the Song-Beverly Act since 2022.
13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
14 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing" and "parameters for
15 determining" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad
16 and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
17 admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action.
18 GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance
19 would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in
20 controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual
21 lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior
22 Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to
23 relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate
24 to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
25 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and
26 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the
27 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
28 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
11
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
2 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:
4 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining
5 what constitutes a “substantial impairment” of a vehicle’s use, value, or safety to determine
6 eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2022.
7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:
8 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing" and "parameters for
9 determining" are overbroad, vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it
10 is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
11 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue
12 in this action. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and
13 that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case,
14 the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a
15 simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space
16 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically,
17 whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely
18 unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this
19 Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of
20 GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
21 information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents
22 will be produced.
23 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
24 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
25 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
26 ///
27 ///
28
12
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:
2 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for defining
3 what constitutes a “reasonable number of repair attempts” to determine eligibility for a vehicle
4 repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2022.
5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:
6 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing" and "parameters for defining"
7 are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks
8 documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
9 evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also
10 objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be
11 unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy,
12 and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law
13 case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court
14 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief
15 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the
16 scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
17 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and
18 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the
19 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
20 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
21 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
22 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:
24 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for establishing
25 the turn-around time to respond to a vehicle repurchase request pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act
26 since 2022.
27 ///
28
13
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:
2 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing" and "parameters for
3 establishing" are overbroad, vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it
4 is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
5 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue
6 in this action. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and
7 that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case,
8 the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a
9 simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space
10 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically,
11 whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely
12 unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this
13 GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
14 information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents
15 will be produced.
16 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
17 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
18 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
20 All DOCUMENTS that YOU utilize to determine whether a vehicle is eligible for a
21 repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2022.
22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
23 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "utilize" is vague and ambiguous. GM also
24 objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not
25 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope
26 to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is
27 burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive
28 considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at
14
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this
2 Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61
3 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly
4 Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this
5 Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade
6 secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this
7 Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-
8 product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
9 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
10 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
11 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
12 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
13 All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe YOUR policies, procedures and/or
14 instructions since 2022 which YOUR authorized repair facilities should follow regarding customer
15 requests for a refund of the price paid for a vehicle pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.
16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
17 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "evidence or describe" are overbroad,
18 vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks
19 documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
20 evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also
21 objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be
22 unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy,
23 and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law
24 case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court
25 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief
26 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the
27 scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
28 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and
15
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the
2 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
3 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
4 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
5 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
7 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies and procedures from 2022 to the present for
8 proactively complying with the Song-Beverly Act in California by offering a repurchase or
9 replacement of a qualifying vehicle without a consumer request to do so.
10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
11 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing" and "proactively complying
12 with" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and
13 seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
14 admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action.
15 GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance
16 would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in
17 controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual
18 lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior
19 Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to
20 relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate
21 to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
22 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and
23 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the
24 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
25
26 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
27 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
28 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
16
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:
2 DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify all of YOUR OBDII codes for the same year, make,
3 and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:
5 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term “sufficient to identify” is overbroad, vague
6 and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents
7 that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as
8 it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE or issues in this action. GM also objects to
9 this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be
10 unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy,
11 and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law
12 case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court
13 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief
14 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the
15 scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
16 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. No documents will be produced.
17 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
18 This is a breach of warranty action involving Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2022 Chevrolet
19 Silverado (“Subject Vehicle” or “Silverado”). Plaintiff seeks an order compelling General Motors
20 LLC (“GM”) to withdraw its objections and produce supplemental responses to Request for
21 Production of Document Nos. 16, 19-32, and 37-41, despite having already received information
22 and documents that are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and GM’s agreement to produce further
23 information. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is unnecessary.
24 The discovery requests in question pertain to documents that relate to other vehicles and
25 other warranty claims, which necessarily say nothing about Plaintiff’s vehicle and are not relevant
26 to this litigation. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks all documents concerning GM’s confidential and
27 proprietary policies and procedures. Certainly, Plaintiff should not have free rein to conduct open-
28 ended discovery into issues that have no relevance to proving the elements of Plaintiff’s simple
17
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 breach of warranty action. This is especially true in this case given that the prejudice to and burden
2 on GM to produce these materials greatly outweighs any miniscule benefit that Plaintiff might glean
3 from the documents. Plaintiff’s Motion was made in bad faith.
4 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to substantively meet and confer in good faith as required
5 by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450 and 2025.480. Fortunately, this Court can put an
6 end to Plaintiff’s outrageous demands and abusive discovery practices. Therefore, GM respectfully
7 requests that this Court deny Plaintiff’s request for a court-ordered fishing expedition by denying
8 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in its entirety.
9 The purpose of discovery is to facilitate the trial process, narrow issues in dispute, and
10 change trial from a game of chance and surprise to an orderly process of uncovering actual facts.
11 (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 781). Litigants, however, do not possess unfettered
12 access to all information they seek. (Covell v. Superior Court (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 39, 42-43).
13 A key limitation on a litigant’s right to discovery is that the information sought must be relevant to
14 the issues of the lawsuit. (Nat’l Steel Products Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 476,
15 492-93). Where information sought in discovery does not relate in any way to the issues involved
16 in a lawsuit, the relevance requirement is not met and a court must invoke its broad discretion in
17 supervising the course and scope of discovery to limit the requests at issue. (Covell, supra at 42-
18 43). By exercising this discretion, the courts prevent litigants from abusing the discovery process
19 in hopes of uncovering supporting evidence that the party should have possessed prior to taking
20 legal action or in an attempt to extort a higher settlement. (Id). Code of Civil Procedure section
21 2013.020(a) is also clear that a court “shall” limit the scope of discovery when “it determines that
22 the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the
23 information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . . . .”
24 Plaintiffs may not use “omnibus” descriptions in their requests for documents. (Flora
25 Crane Serv., Inc., v. Super. Ct. of San Francisco (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 767, 786). “The unlimited
26 characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the
27 records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” (Id). When discovery requests are
28 grossly overbroad on their face, it is reasonable to infer “an intent to harass and improperly burden.”
18
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION O
Preview
MARY ARENS MCBRIDE, ESQ. (SBN: 282459) 1 ALEXANDRIA O. PAPPAS, ESQ. (SBN 326149) THE ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC. 2 1592 N. BATAVIA ST., SUITE 1A ORANGE, CA 92867 3 TEL: (949) 777-6032 FAX: (714) 844-9035 4 eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com apappas@erskinelaw.com 5 6 Attorneys for Defendant, 7 GENERAL MOTORS LLC 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF KERN 10 MARIA DE JESUS ROSAS PARRA, Case No.: BCV-23-100657 11 Unlimited Jurisdiction Plaintiff, 12 GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S SEPARATE vs. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF 13 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 14 TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF Limited Liability Company, et al, DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR 15 SANCTIONS 16 Defendants. Filed Concurrently With: 17 1) Memorandum of Points and Authorities 18 2) Declaration of Alexandria O. Pappas 19 Hearing Date: April 4, 2024 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. 20 Department: 17 21 22 Date Filed: March 3, 2023 Trial Date: April 1, 2025 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 2 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 3 All of YOUR warranty claims policy and procedure manual(s) from 2022 to the present. 4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 5 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks documents that are 6 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not 7 limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that 8 it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and 9 expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the 10 issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and 11 this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly 13 Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this 14 Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade 15 secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this 16 Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work- 17 product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 18 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 19 This is a breach of warranty action involving Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2022 Chevrolet 20 Silverado (“Subject Vehicle” or “Silverado”). Plaintiff seeks an order compelling General Motors 21 LLC (“GM”) to withdraw its objections and produce supplemental responses to Request for 22 Production of Document Nos. 16, 19-32, and 37-41, despite having already received information 23 and documents that are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and GM’s agreement to provide further 24 information. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is unnecessary. 25 The discovery requests in question pertain to documents that relate to other vehicles and 26 other warranty claims, which necessarily say nothing about Plaintiff’s vehicle and are not relevant 27 to this litigation. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks all documents concerning GM’s confidential and 28 proprietary policies and procedures. Certainly, Plaintiff should not have free rein to conduct open- 2 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 ended discovery into issues that have no relevance to proving the elements of Plaintiff’s simple 2 breach of warranty action. This is especially true in this case given that the prejudice to and burden 3 on GM to produce these materials greatly outweighs any miniscule benefit that Plaintiff might glean 4 from the documents. Plaintiff’s Motion was made in bad faith. 5 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to substantively meet and confer in good faith as required 6 by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450 and 2025.480. Fortunately, this Court can put an 7 end to Plaintiff’s outrageous demands and abusive discovery practices. Therefore, GM respectfully 8 requests that this Court deny Plaintiff’s request for a court-ordered fishing expedition by denying 9 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in its entirety. 10 The purpose of discovery is to facilitate the trial process, narrow issues in dispute, and 11 change trial from a game of chance and surprise to an orderly process of uncovering actual facts. 12 (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 781). Litigants, however, do not possess unfettered 13 access to all information they seek. (Covell v. Superior Court (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 39, 42-43). 14 A key limitation on a litigant’s right to discovery is that the information sought must be relevant to 15 the issues of the lawsuit. (Nat’l Steel Products Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 476, 16 492-93). Where information sought in discovery does not relate in any way to the issues involved 17 in a lawsuit, the relevance requirement is not met and a court must invoke its broad discretion in 18 supervising the course and scope of discovery to limit the requests at issue. (Covell, supra at 42- 19 43). By exercising this discretion, the courts prevent litigants from abusing the discovery process 20 in hopes of uncovering supporting evidence that the party should have possessed prior to taking 21 legal action or in an attempt to extort a higher settlement. (Id). Code of Civil Procedure section 22 2013.020(a) is also clear that a court “shall” limit the scope of discovery when “it determines that 23 the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the 24 information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . . . .” 25 Plaintiffs may not use “omnibus” descriptions in their requests for documents. (Flora 26 Crane Serv., Inc., v. Super. Ct. of San Francisco (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 767, 786). “The unlimited 27 characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the 28 records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” (Id). When discovery requests are 3 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 grossly overbroad on their face, it is reasonable to infer “an intent to harass and improperly burden.” 2 (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431). As the rule implies, “the discovery 3 process is subject to frequent abuse and, like a cancerous growth, can destroy a meritorious cause 4 or defense . . . [T]his cancer is spreading and judges must become more aggressive in curbing these 5 abuses. Courts must insist discovery devices be used as tools to facilitate litigation rather than as 6 weapons to wage litigation. These tools should be well calibrated; the lancet is to be preferred over 7 the sledge hammer.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 8 221, citing Mannino v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776; see also Obregon v. Superior 9 Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431 [noting that “[a]ny discovery request, even an initial one, 10 can be misused in an attempt to generate settlement leverage by creating burden, expense, 11 embarrassment, distraction, etc.”]). 12 The California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2013.010 provides that the information 13 sought must be (1) “not privileged,” (2) “relevant to the subject matter of the action,” and (3) either 14 admissible or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” This case is 15 about this Plaintiff’s repair history alone, and documents relating to other vehicles and design issues 16 simply are not relevant for proving whether GM breached its warranty in this case, or whether GM 17 failed to repair Plaintiff’s vehicle in a reasonable number of repair attempts. Any request outside 18 of this scope will not lead to any admissible evidence, so Plaintiff simply has no reason to make 19 these kinds of requests. Plaintiff’s requests are irrelevant, overbroad, and seek information that has 20 no bearing on Plaintiff’s individual complaints about the Subject Vehicle. 21 With regard to Request for Production Nos. 16, and 19-32, GM is willing to supplement its 22 document production and produce additional documents in this matter, including its Warranty 23 Policy & Procedure Manual and the policies and procedures used to evaluate lemon law claims and 24 repurchase requests in response to Request for Production Nos. 16 and 19-32. Thus, there is nothing 25 for this Court to compel. 26 Moreover, the breadth of Plaintiff’s requests also encompasses production of trade secret 27 material. Under California law, “[t]rade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, 28 compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that: (1) derives independent 4 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other 2 persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) is the subject of efforts 3 that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” (McGuan v. Endovascular 4 Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988-989 [holding that the trial court did not abuse 5 its discretion in granting a medical device manufacturer’s motion to seal records where [1] the 6 documents discussed the details of defendant’s quality system procedures, complaint handling 7 procedures, device tracking procedures, process validation procedures, and corrective action 8 procedures; [2] the records contain business methods and processes defendant developed to comply 9 with FDA regulations; [3] the value and utility of this information could have application across a 10 range of medical devices; and [4] the records were maintained as confidential and disseminated 11 within defendant’s organization on a limited basis]). 12 Because wholesale disclosure of GM’s internal, confidential materials would cause GM 13 competitive harm as well as harm in the marketplace, GM should not be compelled to produce these 14 confidential, proprietary documents without a heightened showing of the need for the documents 15 to prove Plaintiff’s case. Such a showing has not been made here. 1 16 Given GM’s good-faith effort to fully comply with Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of 17 Documents, there is simply no merit to Plaintiff’s motion. Again, GM has produced a plethora of 18 Bates-labeled documents that are directly responsive to Plaintiff’s requests and agrees to produce 19 further materials pursuant to the entry of a protective order. GM has also demonstrated that it fully 20 responded to, or appropriately objected to Plaintiff’s requests. Accordingly, GM respectfully 21 requests that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for 22 Production of Documents in its entirety. 23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: 24 All DOCUMENTS which describe the procedures used by YOU for evaluating and 25 responding to complaints by California consumers regarding vehicles YOU manufactured or 26 1 If the Court is not persuaded by GM’s objections regarding the production of trade secret, confidential, and proprietary information and/or if the parties are unable to agree on the form of a suitable Protective Order, GM reserves its right 27 to file, and will file, a Motion for Protective Order applicable to documents ordered compelled by this Court, if any. In said Motion for Protective Order, GM will fully address the issue for the need to protect its trade secret, proprietary, 28 and confidential information pursuant to a suitable Protective Order. 5 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 distributed since 2022. 2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: 3 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "describe" is overbroad, vague and 4 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that 5 are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is 6 not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this 7 Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably 8 difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the 9 importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with 10 limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 11 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the 12 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and 13 breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, 14 proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM 15 further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client 16 privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 17 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 18 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 19 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 21 All DOCUMENTS which describe policies, procedures, and/or instructions since 2022 that 22 YOUR employees and agents should follow when evaluating a customer request for a refund of 23 their money paid towards or owed on a motor vehicle manufactured or distributed by YOU. 24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 25 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "describe" is overbroad, vague and 26 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that 27 are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is 28 not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this 6 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably 2 difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the 3 importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with 4 limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 5 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the 6 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and 7 breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, 8 proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM 9 further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client 10 privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 11 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 12 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 13 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: 15 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, or guidelines for determining 16 whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since2022. 17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: 18 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "describing" is overbroad, vague and 19 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that 20 are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is 21 not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this 22 Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably 23 difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the 24 importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with 25 limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 26 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the 27 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and 28 breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, 7 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM 2 further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client 3 privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 4 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 5 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 6 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: 8 All training materials regarding the handling of consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase 9 in California since 2022. 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: 11 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "regarding" and "handling" are overbroad, 12 vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks 13 documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 14 evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also 15 objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be 16 unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, 17 and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law 18 case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court 19 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief 20 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the 21 scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 22 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and 23 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the 24 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 25 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 26 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 27 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: 8 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 All training materials for YOUR employees or agents tasked with determining whether a 2 vehicle is eligible or a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2022. 3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: 4 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "training materials" and "tasked with 5 determining" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad 6 and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 7 admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. 8 GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance 9 would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in 10 controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual 11 lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior 12 Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to 13 relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate 14 to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 15 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and 16 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the 17 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 18 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 19 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 20 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: 22 All scripts and flow charts that YOU utilize in handling California consumer requests for a 23 vehicle repurchase or replacement since 2022. 24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: 25 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "utilize" and "handling" are overbroad, 26 vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks 27 documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 28 evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also 9 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be 2 unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, 3 and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law 4 case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court 5 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief 6 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the 7 scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 8 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and 9 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the 10 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 11 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 12 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 13 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: 15 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining 16 what constitutes a repair presentation to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to 17 the Song-Beverly Act since 2022. 18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: 19 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing," "parameters for determining" 20 and "repair presentation" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it 21 is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 22 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue 23 in this action. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and 24 that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, 25 the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a 26 simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space 27 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, 28 whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely 10 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this 2 Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of 3 GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 4 information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents 5 will be produced. 6 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 7 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 8 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: 10 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining 11 what constitutes a “non-conformity” to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to 12 the Song-Beverly Act since 2022. 13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: 14 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing" and "parameters for 15 determining" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad 16 and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 17 admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. 18 GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance 19 would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in 20 controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual 21 lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior 22 Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to 23 relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate 24 to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 25 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and 26 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the 27 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 28 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 11 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 2 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: 4 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining 5 what constitutes a “substantial impairment” of a vehicle’s use, value, or safety to determine 6 eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2022. 7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: 8 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing" and "parameters for 9 determining" are overbroad, vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it 10 is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 11 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue 12 in this action. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and 13 that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, 14 the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a 15 simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space 16 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, 17 whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely 18 unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this 19 Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of 20 GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 21 information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents 22 will be produced. 23 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 24 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 25 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 26 /// 27 /// 28 12 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: 2 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for defining 3 what constitutes a “reasonable number of repair attempts” to determine eligibility for a vehicle 4 repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2022. 5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: 6 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing" and "parameters for defining" 7 are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks 8 documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 9 evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also 10 objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be 11 unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, 12 and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law 13 case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court 14 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief 15 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the 16 scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 17 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and 18 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the 19 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 20 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 21 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 22 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: 24 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for establishing 25 the turn-around time to respond to a vehicle repurchase request pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act 26 since 2022. 27 /// 28 13 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: 2 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing" and "parameters for 3 establishing" are overbroad, vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it 4 is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 5 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue 6 in this action. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and 7 that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, 8 the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a 9 simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space 10 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, 11 whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely 12 unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this 13 GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 14 information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents 15 will be produced. 16 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 17 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 18 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: 20 All DOCUMENTS that YOU utilize to determine whether a vehicle is eligible for a 21 repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2022. 22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: 23 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "utilize" is vague and ambiguous. GM also 24 objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not 25 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope 26 to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is 27 burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive 28 considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at 14 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this 2 Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly 4 Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this 5 Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade 6 secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this 7 Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work- 8 product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 9 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 10 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 11 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 12 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: 13 All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe YOUR policies, procedures and/or 14 instructions since 2022 which YOUR authorized repair facilities should follow regarding customer 15 requests for a refund of the price paid for a vehicle pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act. 16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: 17 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "evidence or describe" are overbroad, 18 vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks 19 documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 20 evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also 21 objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be 22 unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, 23 and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law 24 case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court 25 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief 26 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the 27 scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 28 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and 15 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the 2 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 3 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 4 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 5 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: 7 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies and procedures from 2022 to the present for 8 proactively complying with the Song-Beverly Act in California by offering a repurchase or 9 replacement of a qualifying vehicle without a consumer request to do so. 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: 11 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing" and "proactively complying 12 with" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and 13 seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 14 admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. 15 GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance 16 would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in 17 controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual 18 lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior 19 Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to 20 relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate 21 to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 22 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and 23 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the 24 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 25 26 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 27 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 28 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 16 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: 2 DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify all of YOUR OBDII codes for the same year, make, 3 and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: 5 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term “sufficient to identify” is overbroad, vague 6 and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents 7 that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as 8 it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE or issues in this action. GM also objects to 9 this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be 10 unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, 11 and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law 12 case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court 13 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief 14 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the 15 scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 16 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. No documents will be produced. 17 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 18 This is a breach of warranty action involving Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2022 Chevrolet 19 Silverado (“Subject Vehicle” or “Silverado”). Plaintiff seeks an order compelling General Motors 20 LLC (“GM”) to withdraw its objections and produce supplemental responses to Request for 21 Production of Document Nos. 16, 19-32, and 37-41, despite having already received information 22 and documents that are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and GM’s agreement to produce further 23 information. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is unnecessary. 24 The discovery requests in question pertain to documents that relate to other vehicles and 25 other warranty claims, which necessarily say nothing about Plaintiff’s vehicle and are not relevant 26 to this litigation. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks all documents concerning GM’s confidential and 27 proprietary policies and procedures. Certainly, Plaintiff should not have free rein to conduct open- 28 ended discovery into issues that have no relevance to proving the elements of Plaintiff’s simple 17 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 breach of warranty action. This is especially true in this case given that the prejudice to and burden 2 on GM to produce these materials greatly outweighs any miniscule benefit that Plaintiff might glean 3 from the documents. Plaintiff’s Motion was made in bad faith. 4 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to substantively meet and confer in good faith as required 5 by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450 and 2025.480. Fortunately, this Court can put an 6 end to Plaintiff’s outrageous demands and abusive discovery practices. Therefore, GM respectfully 7 requests that this Court deny Plaintiff’s request for a court-ordered fishing expedition by denying 8 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in its entirety. 9 The purpose of discovery is to facilitate the trial process, narrow issues in dispute, and 10 change trial from a game of chance and surprise to an orderly process of uncovering actual facts. 11 (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 781). Litigants, however, do not possess unfettered 12 access to all information they seek. (Covell v. Superior Court (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 39, 42-43). 13 A key limitation on a litigant’s right to discovery is that the information sought must be relevant to 14 the issues of the lawsuit. (Nat’l Steel Products Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 476, 15 492-93). Where information sought in discovery does not relate in any way to the issues involved 16 in a lawsuit, the relevance requirement is not met and a court must invoke its broad discretion in 17 supervising the course and scope of discovery to limit the requests at issue. (Covell, supra at 42- 18 43). By exercising this discretion, the courts prevent litigants from abusing the discovery process 19 in hopes of uncovering supporting evidence that the party should have possessed prior to taking 20 legal action or in an attempt to extort a higher settlement. (Id). Code of Civil Procedure section 21 2013.020(a) is also clear that a court “shall” limit the scope of discovery when “it determines that 22 the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the 23 information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . . . .” 24 Plaintiffs may not use “omnibus” descriptions in their requests for documents. (Flora 25 Crane Serv., Inc., v. Super. Ct. of San Francisco (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 767, 786). “The unlimited 26 characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the 27 records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” (Id). When discovery requests are 28 grossly overbroad on their face, it is reasonable to infer “an intent to harass and improperly burden.” 18 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION O