Alexandrina Atanassova and David Pendergast, individually and as parents and natural guardians of S.P., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. General Motors LLC, Defendant Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-01728-RMG United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division Signed March 12, 2021 Counsel Bradley Landon Leger, Pro Hac Vice, Charles Kelvin Adams, Pro Hac Vice, Rodney Kent Castille, Pro Hac Vice, Leger Ketchum and Cohoon PLLC, The Woodlands, TX, Kerri Ann Brown Rupert, Murphy and Grantland PA, Melissa Garcia Mosier, Joye Law Firm LLP, Columbia, SC, for Plaintiffs. Andrew Marvin Connor, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, Charleston, SC, Darin J. Lang, Pro Hac Vice, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, Denver, CO, Kevin J. Penhallegon, Pro Hac Vice, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, Baltimore, MD, Michael P. Cooney, Pro Hac Vice, Dykema Gossett, Detroit, MI, Sarah Theresa Eibling, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, Columbia, SC, for Defendant. Gergel, Richard M., United States District Judge ORDER AND OPINION *1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel (Dkt. No. 78). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion. Background On January 26, 2021, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. (Dkt. No. 51) (denying (Dkt. No. 36)). The Court directed the parties to meet and confer regarding the subject matter of Plaintiffs’ motion. To the extent disputes remained after the parties’ meet and confer, Plaintiffs were directed to renew their motion within fourteen (14) days of the Court's order. On February 9, 2021, Plaintiffs renewed their motion to compel. (Dkt. No. 78). Therein, Plaintiffs limited their request to renew to Interrogatory Nos. 6, 10, 11, and 12, Requests for Production Nos. 4, 19, 21, 38, and 39, Defendant's “Fuel Delivery System Scope” excerpt, and Defendant's exclusion of the GMT 800 platform as a “substantially similar fuel platform.” (Id. at 2). Defendant opposes Plaintiffs’ motion. (Dkt. No. 88). Plaintiffs filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 99). Plaintiffs’ motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition. Legal Standard Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection if, inter alia, the party to whom the discovery was directed failed to produce documents or to permit inspection, or respond that inspection will be permitted as requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). Analysis First, the Court considers Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendant wrongfully “exclude[ed] ... the GMT800 platform as a substantially similar fuel system platform” when responding to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. See (Dkt. No. 78 at 2). In their renewed motion to compel, Plaintiffs provide no detail regarding this point, stating: “Plaintiffs request to renew Plaintiffs’ motion to Compel pertaining ... to ... GM's exclusion of the GMT 800 platform as a substantially similar fuel system platform.” (Id.). And a review of Plaintiff's initial motion to compel reveals Plaintiffs did not previously raise this issue with the Court.[1] See generally (Dkt. No. 36). Defendant states as much in its briefing, (Dkt. No. 88 at 7-9), but adds, “To end this unnecessary motion practice, GM offers (below) the GMT 800 discovery that Plaintiffs appear, from their cryptic meet and confer discussions to be seeking,” (id. at 9-11); see also (Dkt. No. 88-1) (letter from Defendant to Plaintiffs to this effect). *2 The Court denies Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel in so far as it seeks to challenge “GM's exclusion of the GMT800 platform as a substantially similar fuel system” from its discovery responses. As noted above, this issue was not raised in Plaintiffs’ initial motion to compel and is not properly before the Court. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion on this point. Second and lastly, the Court considers Defendant's “Fuel Delivery System Scope” excerpt and Plaintiffs’ objections to Defendant's responses to Interrogatory Nos. 6, 10, 11, and 12 and Requests for Production Nos. 4, 19, 21, 38 and 39. In their First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant, Plaintiffs sought information relating to: “(a) the fuel evaporative emission control system; (b) the fuel pump module/assembly, its fuel pump and its fuel inlet and outlet connections; (c) all fittings, couplings, hoses and tubing used in the fuel system; [and] (d) the fuel system's electronic components.” (Dkt. No. 36-1 at 3) (the “relevant fuel system components”). In responding to the above discovery requests, Defendant included a “Prefatory Statement” wherein Defendant stated, “For the purposes of responding to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, GM, LLC has included in its scope regarding the fuel system (‘Fuel Delivery System Scope’) the following fuel delivery system components: fuel feed line, fuel vapor line & vapor canister.” (Id. at 5). Plaintiffs objected to Defendant's “Fuel Delivery System Scope” definition on the basis that it might exclude relevant fuel system components. Plaintiffs request that the Court strike Defendant's “Fuel Delivery System Scope” excerpt. (Id. at 17). Relatedly, Plaintiffs object to Defendant's Reponses to Interrogatory Nos. 6, 10, 11, and 12 and Requests for Production Nos. 4, 19, 21, 38, and 39. In relation to each of these discovery requests, Plaintiffs raise a similar if not identical objection. For example, in relation to Interrogatory No. 6, Plaintiffs object that Defendant's “response ... is incomplete, because GM limited its RFP and disclosure responses only to the fuel system's ‘fuel feed line, fuel vapor line & vapor canister.’ ” (Dkt. No. 36-1 at 19). The “cure” Plaintiffs seek is that Defendant “produ[ce], and identify[ ] with Bates Numbers[ ] GM's business records from which the information requested in this Interrogatory ... can be found.” (Id. at 20) (“GM should be required to supplement its answer, under oath, to this Interrogatory by providing a full and complete narrative answer to this Interrogatory as written or answer this Interrogatory in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) by producing, and identifying with Bates Numbers, GM's business records from which the information requested in this Interrogatory, as written, can be found.”); see also, e.g., (Id. at 22-23) (same for Interrogatory Nos. 10, 11, and 12) (“GM should be required to supplement its answer, under oath, to Interrogatories 10, 11 and 12 by providing a full and complete narrative answer to these Interrogatories as written or answer these Interrogatories in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) by producing, and identifying with Bates Numbers, GM's business records from which the information requested in these Interrogatories, as written, can be found.”); (Id. at 25) (same for Request for Production No. 4) (“GM should be required to supplement its responses to this RFP by identifying with Bates Numbers the responsive items requested in this RFP, as written, and produce the requested item to Plaintiffs”); (Id. 28-29) (same for Request for Production No. 19); (Id. at 29) (same for Request for Production No. 21); (Id. at 32) (same for Request for Production Nos. 38 and 39); (Dkt. No. 78) (stating in whole that “Plaintiffs request to renew Plaintiffs’ motion to Compel pertaining only to Interrogatory Nos. 6, 10, 11, and 12, RFP Nos. 4, 19, 21, 38 and 39”). *3 Defendant retorts that, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions otherwise, Defendant's “Fuel Delivery System Scope” definition includes all relevant fuel delivery system components. (Dkt. No. 88 at 6). Further, Defendant states that it has already provided Plaintiffs, through supplemental discovery responses, Bates Numbers corresponding to the discovery requested. See (Dkt. No. 39-1 at 11-12, 16-18); (Dkt. No. 39-2 at 11, 25-27, 38-39). Lastly, Defendant “agrees,” as it regards Requests for Production Nos. 38 and 39, to “expand the scope of its responses” and supplement its responses with “reports of allegations of non-collision fires due to a defective fuel delivery system for vehicles in the Fuel Delivery System Scope, regardless of whether there were also claims of personal injury or death from the fires” and “relevant reports for the list of test incidents already produced in this case.” (Dkt. No. 88 at 5). The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion on the above points. As shown supra, Defendants have cured all deficiencies related to Defendant's Reponses to Interrogatory Nos. 6, 10, 11, and 12 and Requests for Production Nos. 4, 19, 21, 38, and 39 in the manner Plaintiffs initially requested—namely by providing Bates Numbers indicating Defendant's responses to the pertinent discovery requests. (Dkt. No. 39-1 at 11-12, 16-18); (Dkt. No. 39-2 at 11, 25-27, 38-39). Further, while Plaintiffs assert that Defendant's discovery responses might lack information regarding “relevant fuel system components,” Defendant has submitted an affidavit—the contents of which Plaintiffs do not dispute—establishing that this is not the case. See Affidavit of Manoj Modi, (Dkt. No. 88-2 at 3) (noting “It is my understanding that Plaintiffs, in their motion to compel, seek materials related to what Plaintiffs describe as the ‘fuel pump module assembly and fuel inlet and outlet connections, fittings, couplings, hoses and tubing used with those parts of the fuel system; and fuel system electronic components’ of the subject pickup truck and similar vehicles. GM's above defined Fuel Delivery System Scope and discovery responses included those components for the scope vehicles.”) (emphasis added).[2] Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel (Dkt. No. 78). AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] Plaintiffs summarized the subject matter of their original motion to compel as follows: “The subject matter of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel are the ‘Fuel Delivery System Scope’ excerpt in the ‘Prefatory Statement’ in GM's responses to Interrogatories and RFP, and the ‘Introductory Statement’ in GM's disclosures, limiting the scope of GM's responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery to the fuel system's ‘fuel feed line, fuel vapor line & vapor canister’, and excluding from their scope responses and disclosures seeking discovery of the remaining relevant fuel system components. Additionally, the subject matter of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel are: i) GM's objections and responses to Interrogatories 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, and 16 and its subparts (1), (2), (4), (5), (7-9), and (11), and RFP 2, 4, 7-12, 18, 19, 21, 29, 35, 38 and 39; ii) GM's failure to provide a ‘Privilege Log’ with its responses to Plaintiffs’ RFP; and iii) GM's continuing duty to supplement its responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and GM's disclosures in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).” (Dkt. No. 36-1 at 16-17). [2] Relatedly, the Court notes that Plaintiffs nowhere argue that the discovery Defendant produced to Plaintiffs in-fact excluded information regarding any of the “relevant fuel system components.” For example, in responding to Plaintiffs’ initial motion to compel, Defendant noted that it had “provided discovery as to [the fuel system's fuel feed line, fuel vapor line and vapor canister] along with various components that connect and/or relate to those parts, including the fuel pump module/assembly and fuel inlet and outlet connections, fittings, couplings, hoses and tubing used with those parts of the fuel system; and fuel system electronic components.” (Dkt. No. 39 at 9-10 & n.5) (stating, for example, that Defendant “produced fuel pump information” to Plaintiffs). Neither in their reply on the initial motion to compel, (Dkt. No. 48), nor their reply on their renewed motion to compel, (Dkt. No. 99), do Plaintiffs substantively contest these assertions.