Opinion ID: 77297
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The First Motion to Compel Discovery

Text: 23 On June 23, 2004, Serra filed its first motion to compel discovery. On August 27, 2004, the district court held a hearing on the motion. As to the requests for production regarding the satellite dealerships, the court ordered GM to produce all documents [c]reating, evidencing, terminating, implementing, [and] continuing the satellite program. The court stressed that [i]f it has to do with the satellite program, and it's a document, then you need to produce it. GM informed the court that to accomplish this task, it would have to look through, to sort through all seven thousand dealers across the country or contact[ ] the hundred and fifty or so zone managers across the country and ask[ ] them to do it. The court responded, I suggest you contact your hundred and fifty zone managers, and then you produce the documents . . . that relate to the satellite. The court gave GM 60 days to produce the requested documents. 24 As to the request for production regarding allocation data for all Chevrolet dealers in the Birmingham area from 1998 forward, the court limited the request from 2001 forward, consistent with the January 28, 2004, order. When the court asked why GM had not produced this data, GM explained that under Alabama law the documents were confidential and GM could not legally produce the documents without either the consent of the other dealers or a court order. The court then ordered GM to produce the documents within 60 days. On August 30, 2004, the district court entered a written order granting the motion to compel discovery in accordance with the terms described in the hearing. 25 Sixty days after the hearing, on October 27, 2004, GM filed a motion to reconsider regarding the allocation data and argued that there was no factual basis for the claim. That same day, GM produced monthly allocation data, which are the monthly determination of the number and type of vehicles each dealer earned (File A data). Although GM produced the data, GM asked Serra not to produce or disclose it to anyone, including the plaintiff, experts/consultants and third parties, until the Court orders that said production and disclosure is appropriate. The district court denied the motion to reconsider on November 14, 2004, without explanation. 26 Because GM retained File A documents for only 36 months in the normal course of business, it produced the monthly allocation data for all Birmingham dealers from June 1, 2001, forward. Based on a litigation exception to its retention policy, GM had retained the monthly allocation documents for Serra and Edwards Chevrolet from January 1, 2001, forward and produced all those documents. 27 On October 29, 2004, counsel for Serra responded by letter to counsel for GM regarding the documents produced. Counsel for Serra stated that GM failed to produce weekly allocation data, which are data regarding the weekly process used to determine how the committed volume of vehicles are delivered and received by the dealership (File B data). Counsel for Serra requested the information immediately. 28 On October 29, 2004, GM produced a list of 23 dealerships across the country that had active satellite agreements. This list was compiled through a search of a computer database that stored information relative to all Chevrolet dealers nationwide. After Serra advised GM that the production did not include terminated satellite agreements, on November 11, 2004, GM supplemented its response with an additional list of 12 dealerships that had terminated satellite agreements.