| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Document Requests
Guadalupe Gutierrez Islas v. General Motors LLC
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Document Requests
Hearing Date: May 1, 2026
As detailed below, the motion of Plaintiff Guadalupe Gutierrez Islas (“Plaintiff”) to compel the further responses of Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”), is GRANTED as to RPD 10. Defendant has 30 days after notice of the Court’s order to respond further to, and produce responsive documents for, RPD 10 consistent with this ruling. Otherwise, the motion is DENIED as to the remaining at-issue RPDs, namely RPDs 19-22, 31, 36, 42-44, 48-53, and 56-58. Finally, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED because it is procedurally flawed and sanctions are not warranted. [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.040, and 2031.310, subd. (h).]
Legal Standard.
If a party requesting a response to a request for production of documents believes that an objection in the response is unfounded or too broad, that party can file a motion to compel a more complete response. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (a).] When filing a motion to compel a further response to a document request, the moving party must prove good cause for the discovery sought. [Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.] “Good cause” involves showing both relevance to the case (e.g., how the documents could prove or disprove a certain issue) and specific facts justifying the discovery (e.g., why the information is necessary for trial or to avoid surprise). [Glenfed Development Corp. v.
Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.] Usually, declarations are used to prove “good cause” and must contain “specific facts” rather than just conclusions. [Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1138, 1141
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Discussion.
Preliminarily, the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Alexander Khoubian, indicates that the meet-and-confer requirement was met. [Khoubian Decl. at ¶¶ 7-10 and Exhs. C-E; Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.]
1. RPD 10.
This request seeks all documents that refer to, relate to, or concern any communications between Defendant and its authorized repair facilities concerning Plaintiff’s 2022 GMC Acadia (“Subject Vehicle”). [Exh. C to Khoubian Decl. at 14:1-19.] Defendant responded by:
(1) identifying previously produced Bates-stamped documents; (2) incorporating by reference its “General Objections”1; (3) reserving objections based on the work-product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege; and (4) raising objections, where applicable, based on overbreadth, burden, vagueness, irrelevance, and failure to identify the document with reasonable particularity. [Ibid.]
Plaintiff has shown good cause for Defendant’s production of documents [see Evid. Code § 250] responsive to RPD 10. For example, issues affecting the Subject Vehicle and Defendant’s or its authorized repair facility’s efforts to fix those issues are directly relevant to whether Defendant acted willfully in violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. [See Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (c); see also Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 152; Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 184.] Therefore, RPD 10 is likely to lead to discovering the extent of Defendant’s knowledge of the alleged defects in the Subject Vehicle and whether Defendant’s repair procedures were effective in fixing those defects.
As to RPD 10, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s response to this RPD does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 because it implies that Defendant withheld documents. Defendant shall provide a Code-compliant response to RPD 10. To the extent Defendant is withholding responsive documents based on a claim of privilege or based on the attorney work-product doctrine, Defendant is ordered to produce a privilege log pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240.
2. RPDs 19-22, 31, 36, 42-44, 48-53, and 56-58.
Except for RPD 10, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to provide further responses to the remaining RPDs (19-22, 31, 36, 42-44, 48-53, and 56-58) is DENIED.
First, Plaintiff fails to meet their burden of demonstrating good cause for discovering the documents listed in RPDs 19-22, 31, 36, 42-44, 48-53, and 56-58. Plaintiff’s Separate Statement and their counsel’s declaration do not adequately support the fact-specific good cause needed for the production of documents responsive to those RPDs.
Second, RPDs 22, 36, 42, 43, and 44 are overly broad because they require documents “from 2015 to the present.” The moving papers did not show any fact-specific good cause to explain why the documents sought “from 2015 to the present” are discoverable.
Third, RPDs 19-21, 31, 48-53, and 56-58 are overbroad. Essentially, Plaintiff requests documents and discovery related to other litigation involving the 2022 GMC Acadia, regardless of whether the alleged defects are the same as those at issue here. In the moving papers, Plaintiff
1 Defendant’s “General Objections” include the following: (1) objections to documents not in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control; (2) objections to demands asking about vehicles, systems, or parts outside the Subject Vehicle; and (3) objections to any RPD seeking documents that Defendant previously produced under Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26. [Exh. C to Khoubian Decl. at 2:4-5:28.] 2
defined “Defects” to include the following issues with the Subject Vehicle: “(1) symptoms related to the check engine light being on; (2) symptoms related to safety recalls; (3) symptoms related to N2222393100 customer satisfaction program’s second row middle seatbelt buckle alert turning on.” [Motion at 4:8-10; Khoubian Decl. at ¶ 3 and attached Exh. A.] However, RPDs 31, 48-49, 52-53, and 56-57, request the production of documents related to “Non-Conformities,” which Plaintiff defines as “any issue, be it mechanical, electric, cosmetic, or other, causing the vehicle or any part of it not to look or work as it was designed to look or work.” [Exh.
B to Khoubian Decl. at 2:17-19.] Because of this definition, these RPDs are overly broad as they seek documents concerning any defects that may occur in any vehicles of the same model and year as the Subject Vehicle. RPDs 19-21 and 50-51 are also not limited to the Defects at issue here.
Finally, Defendant only objected to RPD 58. To explain why this is insufficient, Plaintiff incorporates their Statement of Insufficiency regarding why a further response to RPD 10 is necessary. However, there is nothing in that response to demonstrate good cause for producing Defendant’s “dealership agreement with Gold Star GMC in Salinas, California, and Cardinale Automotive Group in Seaside, California.”
3. Sanctions Request.
Procedurally and substantively, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.
Procedurally, Plaintiff’s request does not fulfill the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040. Aside from “Request for Sanctions” appearing in the caption, the Notice of Motion fails to identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought and to specify the type of sanction requested. [See Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.040.] Beyond using the word “sanction” when describing case authorities, Plaintiff, in their moving memorandum, does not request any sanctions or indicate that any such request is directed to defense counsel.
Plaintiff’s Proposed Order states a sanctions amount against Defendant and its counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration offers nothing to support that request. Plaintiff, in their Reply, seeks sanctions of $1,371.50, but the attorney declaration accompanying it not only fails to justify the hourly rate and work expended but also states a different amount ($2,743). The procedural defects alone warrant denying Plaintiff’s sanctions request.
Even if Plaintiff complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040, Plaintiff’s sanctions request is DENIED. Other than RPD 10, Plaintiff failed to show good cause for an order compelling Defendant’s further response to the at-issue RPDs. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (h).] For those same reasons, Defendant opposed the motion with substantial justification. [Ibid.]
Conclusion.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED only as to RPD 10. Defendant shall further respond and produce documents consistent with the Court’s ruling within 30 days after notice of the Court’s order. Otherwise, Plaintiff’s motion and request for sanctions are DENIED.
Defendant shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling.
NOTE RE TENTATIVE RULING
This tentative ruling becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by following Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey County Local Rule 7.9. Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by email or by calling the Calendar Department at 831-647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.
4