Paul Cottrell vs. General Motors, LLC; and Does 1-10

Dept. F49 Date: 5/18/26 Case Name: Paul Cottrell vs. General Motors, LLC; and Does 1-10 Case No. 24CHCV02566 LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT DEPARTMENT F49 MAY 18, 2026 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 24CHCV02566 Motion filed: 11/10/25 MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Paul Cottrell RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors, LLC NOTICE: OK RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court compelling Defendant General Motors, LLC to provide further response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), Nos. 3, 5-9, and 11-12. TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND This action arises from alleged defects in a 2020 Chevrolet Silverado (the “Subject Vehicle”) purchased by Plaintiff Paul Cottrell (“Plaintiff”) and the subsequent failure of Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”) to conform the Subject Vehicle to warranty specifications.

On July 15, 2024, Plaintiff field the Complaint against Defendant and Does 1 through 10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) violation of subdivision (d) of Civil Code section 1793.2, (2) violation of subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2, (3) violation of subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2, (4) breach of express written warranty, (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, (6) breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, (7) violation of Automotive Repair Act, and (8) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

On August 16, 2024, Defendant filed and Answer. On November 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) (the “Motion”). On January 22, 2026, Defendant filed an Opposition. On January 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Reply.

ANALYSIS “On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

A. Procedural Requirements (1) Meet and Confer A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) A meet and confer declaration must’ state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Plaintiff’s counsel attests that he sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant on October 21, 2025 regarding the deficiencies in Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), and that Defendant never responded. (Devlin Decl., ¶¶ 11-12.) The Court finds a single letter insufficient to satisfy the meet and confer requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter is not a genuine effort to confer and constitutes abusive behavior, and that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the meet and confer requirements of the Discovery Act warrants denial of the Motion. Upon review of the letter, the Court finds that it plainly states what Plaintiff finds insufficient about the responses served and seeks further discussion to resolve the issues without motion practice. (Devlin Decl., Exh. 6.)

The Court cannot characterize the letter as abusive such that outright denial of discovery is justified. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434 [“Such categorical ruling[] should be reserved for cases of clear intent to burden or harass, cases of clear flaunting of statutory responsibilities, cases of established track records of lack of good faith, and the like.”].) The Court accordingly exercises its discretion to rule on the merits of the Motion.

(2) Timeliness of Motion A party must bring a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories within 45 days after the responding party serves verified responses or supplemental verified responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) Parties may also agree in writing to a specific later date by which to file a motion to compel further responses. (Ibid.)

Here, Defendant served unverified responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) on August 22, 2025, and later served verifications by email on September 22, 2025. (Devlin Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. 4.) The deadline to file a motion to compel further was thus November 10, 2025. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6, 2030.300.) The motion, filed on November 10, 2025, was therefore timely.

(3) Separate Statement “Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion? (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories.” Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Plaintiff has filed a Separate Statement (“Pl. SS”) concurrently with the Motion, thereby complying with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a).

B. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) “Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) “If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (b).) “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)

“As a general matter, the statutory scheme imposes no obligation on a party propounding interrogatories to establish good cause or prove up the merits of any underlying claims.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550.) A litigant “is entitled to demand answers to its interrogatories, as a matter of right, and without a prior showing, unless the party on whom those interrogatories are served objects and shows cause why the questions are not within the purview of the code section.” (Id., at p. 541, citing West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 422.)

Plaintiff served his Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Defendant on July 23, 2025. (Devlin Decl., ¶ 9.) Defendant served unverified responses on August 22, 2025, and subsequently provided verifications on September 22, 2025. (Id., ¶ 10, Exh. 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel attests that Defendant has neither responded to meet and confer efforts nor supplemented its responses to the interrogatories. (Id., ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s responses to the interrogatories lack meaningful substance, instead listing boilerplate objections to directly relevant inquiries. (Mot., at pp. 3-4.) Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5-9, and 11-12 are inadequate. Defendant argues that there is nothing to compel because it has already responded to the interrogatories at issue and produced documents responsive to all discovery requests. (Opp’n, at p. 4.)

(1) Special Interrogatory No. 3 Special Interrogatory No. 3 asks: “Please IDENTIFY each agent or employee of YOURS who inspected the SUBJECT VEHICLE, performed repairs on the SUBJECT VEHICLE, or was present when these inspections and/or repairs took place.” (Pl. SS, at p. 4.) Defendant objects to this interrogatory on grounds of overbreadth, burden, and relevance. (Pl. SS, at p. 4.)

Beyond these objections, Defendant provides the following response: “Subject to and without waiving its objections, GM states that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was inspected and repaired by an authorized GM repair facility, not GM, as reflected on the Global Warranty History Report applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE being produced by GM in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One. GM further states that it has not inspected or repaired the SUBJECT VEHICLE. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230, GM refers Plaintiff to any incidentally obtained repair orders being produced in its responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One which may contain the names of individuals who inspected and/or repaired the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” (Pl. SS, at pp. 4-5.)

The Court rejects Defendant’s relevance, burden, and overbreadth objections. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010, discovery is permissible if it is reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Here, Plaintiff has requested information regarding the identities of individuals who inspected or repaired the Subject Vehicle or were present when inspections took place. The interrogatory is reasonably tailored to discover the names of persons with knowledge regarding the repairs, which are central to Plaintiff’s claim of failure to repair.

Defendant also does not substantiate its burden objection. Objections based upon burden must be supported by evidence “showing the quantum of work required’ to respond to the discovery request. (West Pico, supra, at p. 417.) Here, Defendant fails to establish that identifying the names of individuals as requested would require an undue amount of time or expense. Defendant’s objections to Special Interrogatory No. 3 are OVERRULED.

Moreover, the Court finds that Defendant’s substantive response is evasive. Defendant contends in response that it had no agents or employees who inspected the Subject Vehicle and that inspections and repairs were performed entirely by authorized repair facilities and not Defendant. However, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act treats the manufacturer and dealership as a single entity for the purpose of determining whether failed repair efforts require repurchase of a vehicle. (Ibrahim v. Ford Motor Co. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 878, 888-889.) Defendant accordingly may not disclaim that its authorized repair facilities are representatives or agents to avoid responding to the interrogatory. The Motion is thus GRANTED as to Special Interrogatory No. 3.

(2) Special Interrogatory Nos. 5-7 Special Interrogatory No. 5 seeks the facts upon which Defendant bases its contention that the Subject Vehicle has been repaired within a reasonable number of opportunities. (Pl. SS, at p. 6.) Special Interrogatory No. 6 asks: “If YOU contend that the DEFECTS in the SUBJECT VEHICLE do not substantially impair the vehicle’s use, value, or safety, please describe in detail all facts upon which you rely upon for this contention?? (Pl. SS, at p. 9.) Special Interrogatory No. 7 asks: “Please state how may repair opportunities YOU believe is reasonable for repair of the DEFECTS in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, before YOUR obligation to replace or repurchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE is triggered.” (Pl. SS, at p. 11.)

In addition to asserting a number of boilerplate objections, Defendant provides the following response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 5-7: “Subject to and without waiving its objections, GM states that it is informed and believes that verifiable concerns were resolved, and the SUBJECT VEHICLE has been adequately repaired within a reasonable number of repair attempts. To the extent that Plaintiff’s, or a non-GM authorized facility caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s concerns, or to the extent Plaintiff's failure to properly maintain the SUBJECT VEHICLE caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s concerns, such concerns are not covered under the warranty.” (Pl. SS, at pp. 6-7, 9, 12.)

To Special Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7, Defendant adds: “Furthermore, all approved warranty claims submitted by a GM-authorized repair facility for repairs performed to the SUBJECT VEHICLE were paid by GM, and at no cost to Plaintiff.” (Pl. SS, at pp. 6-7, 9, 12.) In further response to No. 5, Defendant invokes Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, electing to produce documents and referring Plaintiff to “the documents being produced in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One, particularly the Global Warranty History Report, any Service Request Activity Report(s) and any incidentally obtained repair orders for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” (Pl. SS, at pp. 6-7.)

The Court finds these responses to be inadequate. Defendant’s specification of documents in response to Special Interrogatory No. 5 refers only generally to entire categories of documents rather than identifying with specificity the documents from which Plaintiff may ascertain the information. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) The Court also finds Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant is in better position than Plaintiff to understand its own internal communications and repair documents, which use numerical codes, to be persuasive. A response that includes information that is unintelligible, without further explanation, is not substantively meaningful.

Special Interrogatory No. 6 seek facts relating to Defendant’s contention that the defects identified by Plaintiff did not affect the Subject Vehicle’s value, and Special Interrogatory No. 7 requires Defendant to indicate how many repair attempts it contends are necessary before triggering a repurchase obligation. Instead of facts, however, Defendant merely restates the contention that the Subject Vehicle was adequately repaired within a reasonable number of attempts. The foregoing responses are accordingly evasive. The Court GRANTS the Motion as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 5-7.

(3) Special Interrogatory Nos. 8-9 Special Interrogatory No. 8 asks: “When were YOU first notified of the DEFECTS concerning the SUBJECT VEHICLE?? (Pl. SS, at p. 16.) Special Interrogatory No. 9 asks: “Please describe in factual detail how YOU were first notified of any DEFECTS concerning the SUBJECT VEHICLE. [For purposes of this interrogatory, Defendant is requested to provide the date of the communication, the names of parties involved in such communication, and the substance of such communication.]? (Pl. SS, at p. 18.)

In response to these interrogatories, Defendant repeats the same vagueness and privilege objections previously raised and invokes Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, referring Plaintiff to “any Service Request Activity Report(s) being produced in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents.” (Pl. SS, at pp. 16, 18-19.) Defendant further objects to Special Interrogatory No. 9 on the ground that it seeks information protected by trade secret. (Pl. SS, at p. 18.)

Defendant contends that the Subject Vehicle was manufactured with complex component parts and that documents with details about engineering, warranty, root cause analysis, specifications and testing, component or product improvement, and financial forecasts are “often discussed in internal communications, meeting notices and minutes, and presentation materials.” (Opp’n, at p. 5.) Defendant, however, provides no specific examples of notifications regarding defects in the Subject Vehicle that contain such information, stating generally only that internal communications “often’ discuss them. This generalized statement does not justify Defendant’s blanket withholding of relevant information.

Moreover, the interrogatories do not call for production of entire documents or files. They request information regarding the circumstances by which Defendant had notice of issues with the Subject Vehicle, which may be stated in narrative fashion without disclosing sensitive information. The objection is accordingly OVERRULED.

Additionally, the Court finds Defendant’s reference to documents to be vague and incomplete. Document specification pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 requires detailed specification that “permit[s] the propounding party to locate and identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” Reference generally to all service reports, where the question seeks specific detail about when and how Defendant learned of defects with the Subject Vehicle, does not suffice.

Further, the Court finds Defendant’s contention that these interrogatories ask Defendant to draw legal conclusions and disclose the legal reasoning behind its contentions to be meritless. (See, Def. SS, at p. 5.) The interrogatories ask for facts, not theories or conclusions, about when Defendant learned of issues with the vehicle, including dates, who communicated the information, and what was communicated. Insofar as Defendant is suggesting that it did not learn of any defects until after the commencement of litigation, it provides insufficient support for its argument that any communications regarding defects are privileged. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 8-9.

(4) Special Interrogatory No. 11 Special Interrogatory No. 11 asks Defendant to “IDENTIFY each and every fact witness who YOU know, or reasonably believe may possess, information relevant to this action. [For purposes of this interrogatory, a reference to documents being produced in accordance with Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.230 will be deemed an insufficient response.]? (Pl. SS, at p. 21.)

In addition to objections grounded in premature disclosure of witness information, overbreadth, burden and oppression, relevance, and improper refusal to accept a reference to documents, Defendant’s response to this interrogatory directs Plaintiff to “any Service Request Activity Report(s), Repair Order Details, and any incidentally obtained repair orders for the SUBJECT VEHICLE, being produced in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents.” (Pl. SS, at pp. 21-22.)

Assuming document production is proper notwithstanding the form of the question, the Court finds Defendant’s reference generally to repair orders and service request reports to be vague and therefore inadequate. The Discovery Act requires specification of documents to be sufficiently detailed for a propounding party to be able to readily locate and ascertain relevant information. Defendant’s response does not provide such specificity. The response is therefore insufficient. The Court thus GRANTS the Motion as to Special Interrogatory No. 11.

(5) Special Interrogatory No. 12 Special Interrogatory No. 12 asks: “Do YOU contend YOU are under no obligation to repurchase or replace the SUBJECT VEHICLE in accordance with the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act? If so, please describe in detail all facts upon which YOU rely upon for this contention.” (Pl. SS, at p. 23.)

In response, Defendant objects on the ground that the interrogatory seeks trade secret information. (Pl. SS, at p. 24.) Defendant also provides the following response: “Subject to and without waiving its objections, GM states that it is informed and believes that verifiable concerns were resolved, and the SUBJECT VEHICLE has been adequately repaired within a reasonable number of repair attempts. To the extent that Plaintiff or a non-GM authorized facility caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s concerns or to the extent Plaintiff’s failure to properly maintain the SUBJECT VEHICLE caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s concerns, such concerns are not covered under the warranty. Furthermore, all approved warranty claims submitted by a GM-authorized repair facility for repairs performed to the SUBJECT VEHICLE were paid by GM, and at no cost to Plaintiff. GM evaluates each case in good faith in accordance with the provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code §1794 et. seq.).” (Ibid.)

For the reasons noted above, the Court finds that trade secret does not relieve Defendant of the obligation to fully respond to Special Interrogatory No.

12. The interrogatory seeks to confirm a contention and seeks facts on which that contention is based. Responding to the interrogatory does not require the production of entire documents or communications that include sensitive information.

Nevertheless, the Court finds that the response adequately addresses Plaintiff’s inquiry. Defendant’s assertion that all verifiable concerns with the Subject Vehicle were resolved and the Subject Vehicle adequately repaired within a reasonable number of attempts infers an affirmative answer to the question of whether it contends that it is not obligated to repurchase the Subject Vehicle. It can be reasonably understood that the fact on which the contention is based is that all verifiable concerns were resolved. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks further information regarding what number of attempts is reasonable or details about the repair history of the Subject Vehicle, the Court herein already compels response to those inquiries. The Court thus DENIES the Motion as to Special Interrogatory No.

12.

CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff Paul Cottrell’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One). Defendant General Motors, LLC is ordered to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), Nos. 3, 5-9, and 11 within 30 days. Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 25CHCV00410 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Dept: F49 Dept. F49 Date: 5/18/26 Case Name: Joshua D. Butler vs. Green Home Systems, Inc. d.b.a. Green Commercial Systems; American Contractors Indemnity Company; The North River Insurance Company; and Does 1-100