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
Attorneys for Defendant,
6 GENERAL MOTORS LLC
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
9
10
SHAWN AVERY, CASE NO.: 23CV000503
11 Unlimited Jurisdiction
Plaintiff,
12 GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S SEPARATE
v. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
13 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY
14 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND
Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET
15 through 10, inclusive, OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
16 DOCUMENTS
Defendants.
17 Filed Concurrently With:
18 1) Memorandum of Points and Authorities
2) Declaration of Alexandria O. Pappas
19
Hearing Date: April 5, 2024
20 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.
Department: 13A
21
22 Date Filed: February 16, 2023
Trial Date: December 16, 2024
23
24
25
26
27
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
28
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
2 All of YOUR warranty claims policy and procedure manual(s) from 2018 to the present.
3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
4 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks documents that are
5 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not
6 limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that
7 it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and
8 expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the
9 issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and
10 this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61
11 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly
12 Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this
13 Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade
14 secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this
15 Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-
16 product doctrine. 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 2017 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 directly responsive to these requests. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is
23 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 2
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
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 end
7 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 do not possess unfettered access to
13 all information they seek. (Covell v. Superior Court (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 39, 42-43). A key
14 limitation on a litigant’s right to discovery is that the information sought must be relevant to the
15 issues of the lawsuit. (Nat’l Steel Products Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 476, 492-
16 93). Where information sought in discovery does not relate in any way to the issues involved in a
17 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 Plaintiff may not use “omnibus” descriptions in his requests for documents. (Flora Crane
26 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 3
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” (Id). When discovery requests are
2 grossly overbroad on their face, it is reasonable to infer “an intent to harass and improperly burden.”
3 (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431). As the rule implies, “the discovery
4 process is subject to frequent abuse and, like a cancerous growth, can destroy a meritorious cause
5 or defense . . . [T]his cancer is spreading and judges must become more aggressive in curbing these
6 abuses. Courts must insist discovery devices be used as tools to facilitate litigation rather than as
7 weapons to wage litigation. These tools should be well calibrated; the lancet is to be preferred over
8 the sledge hammer.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216,
9 221, citing Mannino v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776; see also Obregon v. Superior
10 Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431 [noting that “[a]ny discovery request, even an initial one,
11 can be misused in an attempt to generate settlement leverage by creating burden, expense,
12 embarrassment, distraction, etc.”]).
13 The California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2013.010 provides that the information
14 sought must be (1) “not privileged,” (2) “relevant to the subject matter of the action,” and (3) either
15 admissible or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” This case is
16 about this Plaintiff’s repair history alone, and documents relating to other vehicles and design issues
17 simply are not relevant for proving whether GM breached its warranty in this case, or whether GM
18 failed to repair Plaintiff’s vehicle in a reasonable number of repair attempts. Any request outside
19 of this scope will not lead to any admissible evidence, so Plaintiff simply has no reason to make
20 these kinds of requests. Plaintiff’s requests are irrelevant, overbroad, and seek information that has
21 no bearing on Plaintiff’s individual complaints about the Subject Vehicle.
22 GM has already agreed to produce its Warranty Policy & Procedure Manual and the
23 policies and procedures used to evaluate lemon law claims and repurchase requests and its
24 California Customer Engagement Center training materials in response to Request for Production
25 Nos. 16 and 19-32. Thus, there is nothing 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 4
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that: (1) derives independent
2 economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other
3 persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) is the subject of efforts
4 that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” (McGuan v. Endovascular
5 Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988-989 [holding that the trial court did not abuse
6 its discretion in granting a medical device manufacturer’s motion to seal records where [1] the
7 documents discussed the details of defendant’s quality system procedures, complaint handling
8 procedures, device tracking procedures, process validation procedures, and corrective action
9 procedures; [2] the records contain business methods and processes defendant developed to comply
10 with FDA regulations; [3] the value and utility of this information could have application across a
11 range of medical devices; and [4] the records were maintained as confidential and disseminated
12 within defendant’s organization on a limited basis]).
13 Because wholesale disclosure of GM’s internal, confidential materials would cause GM
14 competitive harm as well as harm in the marketplace, GM should not be compelled to produce these
15 confidential, proprietary documents without a heightened showing of the need for the documents
16 to prove Plaintiff’s case. Such a showing has not been made here. 1
17 Given GM’s good-faith effort to fully comply with Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of
18 Documents, there is simply no merit to Plaintiff’s motion. Again, GM has produced a plethora of
19 Bates-labeled documents that are directly responsive to Plaintiff’s requests. GM has also
20 demonstrated that it fully responded to, or appropriately objected to Plaintiff’s requests.
21 Accordingly, GM respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further
22 Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in its entirety.
23
24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
25 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
26 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,
27 and confidential information pursuant to a suitable Protective Order.
28 5
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 All DOCUMENTS which describe the procedures used by YOU for evaluating and
2 responding to complaints by California consumers regarding vehicles YOU manufactured or
3 distributed since 2018.
4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
5 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the term "describe" is ague and ambiguous.
6 GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks documents that are
7 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not
8 limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request
9 on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably
10 difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the
11 importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with
12 limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53
13 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the
14 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and
15 breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential,
16 proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM
17 further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
18 privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
19 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
20 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
21 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
22
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
24 All DOCUMENTS which describe policies, procedures and/or instructions since 2018 that
25 YOUR employees or agents should follow when evaluating a customer request for a refund of their
26 money paid towards or owed on a motor vehicle manufactured or distributed by YOU.
27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
28 6
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term “describe” is overbroad, vague and
2 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that
3 are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is
4 not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this
5 Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably
6 difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the
7 importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with
8 limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53
9 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the
10 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and
11 breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential,
12 proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM’s internal policies and procedures. GM
13 further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
14 privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
15 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
16 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
17 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
18
19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
20 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, or guidelines for determining
21 whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2018.
22 ///
23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
24 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term “describing” is overbroad, vague and
25 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that
26 are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is
27 not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this
28 7
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
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
15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
16 All training materials regarding the handling of consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase
17 in California since 2018.
18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
19 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "regarding" and "handling" are vague and
20 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that
21 are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is
22 not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this
23 Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably
24 difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the
25 importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with
26 limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53
27 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the
28 8
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and
2 breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential,
3 proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM
4 further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
5 privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents 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
10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
11 All training materials for YOUR employees or agents tasked with determining whether a
12 vehicle is eligible or a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2018.
13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
14 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms "training materials" and "tasked
15 with determining" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that
16 it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
17 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue
18 in this action. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive,
19 and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the
20 case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is
21 a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space
22 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically,
23 whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely
24 unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this
25 Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of
26 GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
27 information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents
28 9
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 will be produced.
2 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
3 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
4 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
5
6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:
7 All scripts and flow charts that YOU utilize in handling California consumer requests for a
8 vehicle repurchase or replacement since 2018.
9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:
10 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms "utilize" and "handling" are vague
11 and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks
12 documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
13 evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also
14 objects to this Request on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance
15 would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in
16 controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual
17 lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior
18 Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to
19 relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate
20 to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
21 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and
22 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the
23 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
24 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
25 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
26 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
27
28 10
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:
2 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining
3 what constitutes a repair presentation to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to
4 the Song-Beverly Act since 2021.
5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:
6 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing," and "parameters for
7 determining" and "repair presentation" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request
8 on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to
9 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT
10 VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and
11 oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the
12 needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the
13 litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates
14 Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567.
15 Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
16 is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects
17 to this GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it
18 seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No
19 documents will be produced.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 11
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
2 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
3 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
4 ///
5
6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
7 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining
8 what constitutes a “non-conformity” to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to
9 the Song-Beverly Act since and "repair presentation".
10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
11 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms "describing" and "parameters for
12 determining" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
13 overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
14 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue
15 in this action. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive,
16 and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the
17 case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is
18 a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space
19 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically,
20 whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely
21 unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this
22 Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of
23 GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
24 information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents
25 will be produced.
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 12
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
2
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 2018.
7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:
8 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms "describing" and "parameters for
9 determining" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
10 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 the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive,
13 and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the
14 case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is
15 a 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 13
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
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 2018.
5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:
6 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms "describing" and "parameters for
7 defining" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
8 overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
9 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue
10 in this action. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive,
11 and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the
12 case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is
13 a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space
14 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically,
15 whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely
16 unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this
17 Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of
18 GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
19 information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents
20 will be produced.
21 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
22 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
23 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
24
25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:
26 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for establishing
27 the turn-around time to respond to a vehicle repurchase request pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act
28 14
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 since 2018.
2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:
3 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing" and "parameters for
4 establishing" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad
5 and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
6 admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action.
7 GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance
8 would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in
9 controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual
10 lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior
11 Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to
12 relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate
13 to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this GM's internal policies and
14 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the
15 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents 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
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
21 All DOCUMENTS that YOU utilize to determine whether a vehicle is eligible for a
22 repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2018.
23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
24 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the term "utilize" is vague and ambiguous.
25 GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks documents that are
26 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not
27 limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request
28 15
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 on the grounds that 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
15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
16 All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe YOUR policies, procedures and/or
17 instructions since 2018 which YOUR authorized repair facilities should follow regarding customer
18 requests for a refund of the price paid for a vehicle pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.
19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
20 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms "evidence or describe" are vague
21 and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks
22 documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
23 evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also
24 objects to this Request on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance
25 would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in
26 controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual
27 lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior
28 16
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to
2 relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate
3 to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
4 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and
5 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the
6 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced.
7 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
8 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons
9 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16.
10
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
12 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies and procedures from 2018 to the present for
13 proactively complying with the Song-Beverly Act in California by offering a repurchase or
14 replacement of a qualifying vehicle without a consumer request to do so.
15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
16 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms "describing" and "proactively
17 complying with" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it
18 is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
19 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue
20 in this action. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive,
21 and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the
22 case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is
23 a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space
24 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically,
25 whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely
26 unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this
27 Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of
28 17
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
2 information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents
3 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
8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:
9 DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify all of YOUR OBDII codes for the same year, make,
10 and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:
12 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term “sufficient to identify” is overbroad, vague
13 and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents
14 that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as
15 it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE or issues in this action. GM also objects to
16 this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be
17 unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy,
18 and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law
19 case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court
20 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief
21 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the
22 scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
23 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. No documents will be produced.
24 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
25 This is a breach of warranty action involving Plaintiff’s purchase of the Subject Vehicle.
26 Plaintiff seeks an order compelling GM to withdraw its objections and produce supplemental
27 responses to Request for Production of Document Nos. 16, 19-32, and 37-41, despite having already
28 18
GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 received information and documents that are directly responsive to these requests. Thus, Plaintiff’s
2 motion is unnecessary.
3 The discovery requests in question pertain to documents that relate to other vehicles and
4 other warranty claims, which necessarily say nothing about Plaintiff’s vehicle and are not relevant
5 to this litigation. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks all documents concerning GM’s confidential and
6 proprietary policies and procedures. Certainly, Plaintiff should not have free rein to conduct open-
7 ended discovery into issues that have no relevance to proving the elements of Plaintiff’s simple
8 breach of warranty action. This is especially true in this case given that the prejudice to and burden
9 on GM to produce these materials greatly outweighs any miniscule benefit that Plaintiff might glean
10 from the documents. Plaintiff’s Motion was made in bad faith.
11 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to substantively meet and confer in good faith as required
12 by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450 and 2025.480. Fortunately, this Court can put an end
13 to Plaintiff’s outrageous demands and abusive discovery practices. Therefore, GM respectfully
14 requests that this Court deny Plaintiff’s request for a court-ordered fishing expedition by denying
15 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in its entirety.
16 The purpose of discovery is to facilitate the trial process, narrow issues in dispute, and
17 change trial from a game of chance and surprise to an orderly process of uncovering actual facts.
18 (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 781). Litigants do not possess unfettered access to
19 all information they seek. (Covell v. Superior Court (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 39, 42-43). A key
20 limitation on a litigant’s right to discovery is that the information sought must be relevant to the
21 issues of the lawsuit. (Nat’l Steel Products Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 476, 492-
22 93). Where information sought in discovery does not relate in any way to the issues involved in a
23 lawsuit, the relevance requirement is not met and a court must invoke its broad discretion in
24 supervising the course and scope of discovery to limit the requests at issue. (Covell, supra at 42-
25 43). By exercising this discretion, the courts prevent litigants from abusing the discovery pr
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 Attorneys for Defendant, 6 GENERAL MOTORS LLC 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF MONTEREY 9 10 SHAWN AVERY, CASE NO.: 23CV000503 11 Unlimited Jurisdiction Plaintiff, 12 GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S SEPARATE v. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF 13 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY 14 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET 15 through 10, inclusive, OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 16 DOCUMENTS Defendants. 17 Filed Concurrently With: 18 1) Memorandum of Points and Authorities 2) Declaration of Alexandria O. Pappas 19 Hearing Date: April 5, 2024 20 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. Department: 13A 21 22 Date Filed: February 16, 2023 Trial Date: December 16, 2024 23 24 25 26 27 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 28 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 2 All of YOUR warranty claims policy and procedure manual(s) from 2018 to the present. 3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 4 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks documents that are 5 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it is not 6 limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that 7 it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and 8 expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the 9 issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and 10 this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly 12 Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this 13 Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade 14 secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this 15 Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work- 16 product doctrine. 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 2017 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 directly responsive to these requests. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is 23 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 2 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 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 end 7 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 do not possess unfettered access to 13 all information they seek. (Covell v. Superior Court (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 39, 42-43). A key 14 limitation on a litigant’s right to discovery is that the information sought must be relevant to the 15 issues of the lawsuit. (Nat’l Steel Products Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 476, 492- 16 93). Where information sought in discovery does not relate in any way to the issues involved in a 17 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 Plaintiff may not use “omnibus” descriptions in his requests for documents. (Flora Crane 26 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 3 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” (Id). When discovery requests are 2 grossly overbroad on their face, it is reasonable to infer “an intent to harass and improperly burden.” 3 (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431). As the rule implies, “the discovery 4 process is subject to frequent abuse and, like a cancerous growth, can destroy a meritorious cause 5 or defense . . . [T]his cancer is spreading and judges must become more aggressive in curbing these 6 abuses. Courts must insist discovery devices be used as tools to facilitate litigation rather than as 7 weapons to wage litigation. These tools should be well calibrated; the lancet is to be preferred over 8 the sledge hammer.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 9 221, citing Mannino v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776; see also Obregon v. Superior 10 Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431 [noting that “[a]ny discovery request, even an initial one, 11 can be misused in an attempt to generate settlement leverage by creating burden, expense, 12 embarrassment, distraction, etc.”]). 13 The California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2013.010 provides that the information 14 sought must be (1) “not privileged,” (2) “relevant to the subject matter of the action,” and (3) either 15 admissible or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” This case is 16 about this Plaintiff’s repair history alone, and documents relating to other vehicles and design issues 17 simply are not relevant for proving whether GM breached its warranty in this case, or whether GM 18 failed to repair Plaintiff’s vehicle in a reasonable number of repair attempts. Any request outside 19 of this scope will not lead to any admissible evidence, so Plaintiff simply has no reason to make 20 these kinds of requests. Plaintiff’s requests are irrelevant, overbroad, and seek information that has 21 no bearing on Plaintiff’s individual complaints about the Subject Vehicle. 22 GM has already agreed to produce its Warranty Policy & Procedure Manual and the 23 policies and procedures used to evaluate lemon law claims and repurchase requests and its 24 California Customer Engagement Center training materials in response to Request for Production 25 Nos. 16 and 19-32. Thus, there is nothing 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 4 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that: (1) derives independent 2 economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other 3 persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) is the subject of efforts 4 that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” (McGuan v. Endovascular 5 Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988-989 [holding that the trial court did not abuse 6 its discretion in granting a medical device manufacturer’s motion to seal records where [1] the 7 documents discussed the details of defendant’s quality system procedures, complaint handling 8 procedures, device tracking procedures, process validation procedures, and corrective action 9 procedures; [2] the records contain business methods and processes defendant developed to comply 10 with FDA regulations; [3] the value and utility of this information could have application across a 11 range of medical devices; and [4] the records were maintained as confidential and disseminated 12 within defendant’s organization on a limited basis]). 13 Because wholesale disclosure of GM’s internal, confidential materials would cause GM 14 competitive harm as well as harm in the marketplace, GM should not be compelled to produce these 15 confidential, proprietary documents without a heightened showing of the need for the documents 16 to prove Plaintiff’s case. Such a showing has not been made here. 1 17 Given GM’s good-faith effort to fully comply with Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of 18 Documents, there is simply no merit to Plaintiff’s motion. Again, GM has produced a plethora of 19 Bates-labeled documents that are directly responsive to Plaintiff’s requests. GM has also 20 demonstrated that it fully responded to, or appropriately objected to Plaintiff’s requests. 21 Accordingly, GM respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further 22 Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in its entirety. 23 24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: 25 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 26 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, 27 and confidential information pursuant to a suitable Protective Order. 28 5 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 All DOCUMENTS which describe the procedures used by YOU for evaluating and 2 responding to complaints by California consumers regarding vehicles YOU manufactured or 3 distributed since 2018. 4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: 5 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the term "describe" is ague and ambiguous. 6 GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks documents that are 7 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not 8 limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request 9 on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably 10 difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the 11 importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with 12 limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 13 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the 14 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and 15 breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, 16 proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM 17 further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client 18 privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 19 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 20 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 21 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 22 23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 24 All DOCUMENTS which describe policies, procedures and/or instructions since 2018 that 25 YOUR employees or agents should follow when evaluating a customer request for a refund of their 26 money paid towards or owed on a motor vehicle manufactured or distributed by YOU. 27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 28 6 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term “describe” is overbroad, vague and 2 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that 3 are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is 4 not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this 5 Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably 6 difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the 7 importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with 8 limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 9 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the 10 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and 11 breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, 12 proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM’s internal policies and procedures. GM 13 further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client 14 privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 15 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 16 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 17 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 18 19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: 20 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, or guidelines for determining 21 whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2018. 22 /// 23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: 24 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term “describing” is overbroad, vague and 25 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that 26 are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is 27 not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this 28 7 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 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 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: 16 All training materials regarding the handling of consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase 17 in California since 2018. 18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: 19 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "regarding" and "handling" are vague and 20 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that 21 are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is 22 not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this 23 Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably 24 difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the 25 importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with 26 limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 27 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the 28 8 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and 2 breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, 3 proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM 4 further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client 5 privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents 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 10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: 11 All training materials for YOUR employees or agents tasked with determining whether a 12 vehicle is eligible or a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2018. 13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: 14 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms "training materials" and "tasked 15 with determining" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that 16 it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 17 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue 18 in this action. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive, 19 and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the 20 case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is 21 a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space 22 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, 23 whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely 24 unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this 25 Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of 26 GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 27 information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents 28 9 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 will be produced. 2 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 3 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 4 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 5 6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: 7 All scripts and flow charts that YOU utilize in handling California consumer requests for a 8 vehicle repurchase or replacement since 2018. 9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: 10 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms "utilize" and "handling" are vague 11 and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks 12 documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 13 evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also 14 objects to this Request on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance 15 would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in 16 controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual 17 lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior 18 Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to 19 relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate 20 to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 21 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and 22 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the 23 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 24 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 25 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 26 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 27 28 10 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: 2 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining 3 what constitutes a repair presentation to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to 4 the Song-Beverly Act since 2021. 5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: 6 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing," and "parameters for 7 determining" and "repair presentation" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request 8 on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to 9 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT 10 VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and 11 oppressive, and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the 12 needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the 13 litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates 14 Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. 15 Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act 16 is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects 17 to this GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it 18 seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No 19 documents will be produced. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 2 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 3 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 4 /// 5 6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: 7 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining 8 what constitutes a “non-conformity” to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to 9 the Song-Beverly Act since and "repair presentation". 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: 11 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms "describing" and "parameters for 12 determining" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is 13 overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 14 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue 15 in this action. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive, 16 and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the 17 case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is 18 a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space 19 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, 20 whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely 21 unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this 22 Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of 23 GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 24 information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents 25 will be produced. 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 12 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 2 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 2018. 7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: 8 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms "describing" and "parameters for 9 determining" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is 10 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 the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive, 13 and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the 14 case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is 15 a 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 13 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 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 2018. 5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: 6 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms "describing" and "parameters for 7 defining" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is 8 overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 9 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue 10 in this action. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive, 11 and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the 12 case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is 13 a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space 14 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, 15 whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely 16 unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this 17 Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of 18 GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 19 information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents 20 will be produced. 21 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 22 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 23 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 24 25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: 26 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for establishing 27 the turn-around time to respond to a vehicle repurchase request pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act 28 14 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 since 2018. 2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: 3 GM objects to this Request on grounds the terms "describing" and "parameters for 4 establishing" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad 5 and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 6 admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. 7 GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance 8 would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in 9 controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual 10 lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior 11 Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to 12 relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate 13 to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this GM's internal policies and 14 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the 15 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents 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 20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: 21 All DOCUMENTS that YOU utilize to determine whether a vehicle is eligible for a 22 repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2018. 23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: 24 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the term "utilize" is vague and ambiguous. 25 GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks documents that are 26 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not 27 limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also objects to this Request 28 15 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 on the grounds that 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 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: 16 All DOCUMENTS which evidence or describe YOUR policies, procedures and/or 17 instructions since 2018 which YOUR authorized repair facilities should follow regarding customer 18 requests for a refund of the price paid for a vehicle pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act. 19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: 20 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms "evidence or describe" are vague 21 and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks 22 documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 23 evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this action. GM also 24 objects to this Request on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance 25 would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in 26 controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual 27 lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior 28 16 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to 2 relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate 3 to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 4 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal policies and 5 procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the 6 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents will be produced. 7 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 8 GM hereby incorporates its reasons why no further response should be ordered and reasons 9 why Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Request No. 16. 10 11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: 12 All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies and procedures from 2018 to the present for 13 proactively complying with the Song-Beverly Act in California by offering a repurchase or 14 replacement of a qualifying vehicle without a consumer request to do so. 15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: 16 GM objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms "describing" and "proactively 17 complying with" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it 18 is overbroad and seeks documents that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 19 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue 20 in this action. GM also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive, 21 and that compliance would be unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the 22 case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is 23 a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space 24 Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, 25 whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely 26 unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this 27 Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of 28 17 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 2 information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. No documents 3 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 8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: 9 DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify all of YOUR OBDII codes for the same year, make, 10 and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: 12 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term “sufficient to identify” is overbroad, vague 13 and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad and seeks documents 14 that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as 15 it is not limited in scope to the SUBJECT VEHICLE or issues in this action. GM also objects to 16 this Request on grounds it is burdensome and oppressive, and that compliance would be 17 unreasonably difficult and expensive considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, 18 and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. This is a simple, individual lemon law 19 case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court 20 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief 21 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the 22 scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 23 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. No documents will be produced. 24 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 25 This is a breach of warranty action involving Plaintiff’s purchase of the Subject Vehicle. 26 Plaintiff seeks an order compelling GM to withdraw its objections and produce supplemental 27 responses to Request for Production of Document Nos. 16, 19-32, and 37-41, despite having already 28 18 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS – FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 received information and documents that are directly responsive to these requests. Thus, Plaintiff’s 2 motion is unnecessary. 3 The discovery requests in question pertain to documents that relate to other vehicles and 4 other warranty claims, which necessarily say nothing about Plaintiff’s vehicle and are not relevant 5 to this litigation. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks all documents concerning GM’s confidential and 6 proprietary policies and procedures. Certainly, Plaintiff should not have free rein to conduct open- 7 ended discovery into issues that have no relevance to proving the elements of Plaintiff’s simple 8 breach of warranty action. This is especially true in this case given that the prejudice to and burden 9 on GM to produce these materials greatly outweighs any miniscule benefit that Plaintiff might glean 10 from the documents. Plaintiff’s Motion was made in bad faith. 11 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to substantively meet and confer in good faith as required 12 by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450 and 2025.480. Fortunately, this Court can put an end 13 to Plaintiff’s outrageous demands and abusive discovery practices. Therefore, GM respectfully 14 requests that this Court deny Plaintiff’s request for a court-ordered fishing expedition by denying 15 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in its entirety. 16 The purpose of discovery is to facilitate the trial process, narrow issues in dispute, and 17 change trial from a game of chance and surprise to an orderly process of uncovering actual facts. 18 (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 781). Litigants do not possess unfettered access to 19 all information they seek. (Covell v. Superior Court (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 39, 42-43). A key 20 limitation on a litigant’s right to discovery is that the information sought must be relevant to the 21 issues of the lawsuit. (Nat’l Steel Products Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 476, 492- 22 93). Where information sought in discovery does not relate in any way to the issues involved in a 23 lawsuit, the relevance requirement is not met and a court must invoke its broad discretion in 24 supervising the course and scope of discovery to limit the requests at issue. (Covell, supra at 42- 25 43). By exercising this discretion, the courts prevent litigants from abusing the discovery pr