JOSE AVIGAIL GRAMAJO ORDONEZ vs. GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Plaintiff Jose Gramajo Ordonez filed his motion to compel responses to documents, set one, and Feb 18, 2026. Plaintiff alleges that he served three separate meet and confer letters outlining why defendant’s responses were not code compliant. The defendant refused to supplement responses. Plaintiff alleges that defendant has not produced documents in connection with RFPs: 1-58. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant has refused to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel via Zoom or phone calls to complete a good faith attempt to meet and confer.

Defendant filed its opposition on May 5, 2026, explaining that under modifications to the. Song- Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, new cases filed after January 1, 2025, new cases under the Act are subject to AB 1755. Defendant argues that discovery is limited, under the act in that defendant must now produce early disclosures of a specific set of documents related to the subject vehicle. The documents produced by the defendant thus far have been identified by the Legislature as “those most associated with lemon law claims”. These include a vehicle summary reports, service documents, product brochures, etc.

California discovery rules are to be liberally construed in favor of disclosure. Discovery statutes must be interpreted broadly to facilitate the exchange of information between parties. "[A]bsent a showing that substantial interests will be impaired by allowing discovery, liberal policies of discovery rules will generally counsel against overturning a trial court's decision granting discovery and militate in favor of overturning a decision to deny discovery" (Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theatres, Inc., 198 Cal.App.4th 1366 (2011), Forthmann v. Boyer, 97 Cal.App.4th 977 (2002)). As the Supreme Court explains, "a strict, rigid interpretation of the relevancy requirement" would likely "lead recalcitrant parties to attempt to construct an 'irrelevancy' barrier to discovery more frequently," while "a more fluent, liberal interpretation may discourage resorting to this kind of delaying tactic" (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 161 (1970)). The statutory provisions governing discovery methods "must be liberally construed in favor of discovery and reviewing courts must not extend statutory limitations upon discovery beyond limits expressed by legislature". (Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.App.4th 733 (1993)).

The court is concerned with Defendant’s apparent lack of meet and confer efforts. In addition, the voluntary production requirement most likely does not replace responses to discovery requests asked by either party.

Marin Local Rule, Civil, 2.13 provides in pertinent part:

For any discovery dispute in a civil case that the parties cannot resolve informally in the meet and confer process, it shall be the policy of the Marin County Superior Court to Civil Rules – to require use of the Discovery Facilitator Program (“the Program”). Reasonable and good faith participation in the Program before the filing of a discovery motion satisfies a party’s meet and confer obligation for purposes of this rule

It is the court’s policy that all discovery disputes be forwarded to the facilitator program for possible resolution. Unfortunately, it appears this matter was never forwarded to the facilitator program as required by the local rules. The court regrets the error.

The court will be available for an in court session on May 29, 2026, at 3 p.m. to assist the parties to resolve the dispute. The parties may appear via remove technology. Or, the parties could stipulate to participate in the facilitator program.

Appearances are required, with defendant to explain the extend of the meet and confer communications that do not involve email messages.

Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(A), (B), which provides that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.

IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. Kindly turn your camera on when your case is called and make sure the party or lawyer making the appearance is properly identified on the screen.

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing while using the virtual remote courtroom. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence. If it is determined that you are driving your car during the hearing, you will be removed from the virtual courtroom. (Yes, this happens).