Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 20STCV04034, Date: 2024-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV04034    Hearing Date: March 11, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:  Plaintiff's Motion For Monetary Sanctions In The Amount Of $2,400.00, Issue And/Or Evidentiary Sanctions Against Defendant General Motors LLC For Its Continuing Misuse And Abuse Of The Discovery Process And For Failing To Comply With This Court’s July 24, 2023 Order.

BACKGROUND

GERARDO SANCHEZ (“Plaintiff”) filed a Lemon Law case against GENERAL MOTORS LLC (“Defendant”), alleging that Plaintiff purchased Defendant’s new, manufactured 2013 Chevrolet Silverado, having defects including drive motor battery failure, and throttle system failure.

Plaintiff moves for an order imposing monetary sanctions ($2,400.00), evidentiary sanctions, issue sanctions, and/or a default against Defendant, because, on 7/24/23, the Court ordered Defendant to produce its expert for deposition no later than on 8/23/23, but Defendant disobeyed. Defendant opposes the motion because on 2/25/24, Defendant de-designated its expert.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions.  E.g., Code Civ. Proc., §§2023.010(g), 2030.290(c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495. To avoid sanctions, the burden of proving that a discovery violation was not willful is on the party on whom the discovery was served. Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250, 252- 253.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff has shown that Defendant violated the 7/24/23 Court order by not having the deponent attend a deposition timely. At a status conference on 2/8/24, the Court again ordered Defendant to make its expert appear for deposition by 2/29/24. Defendant’s late opposition argues that the motion is moot because it de-designated its expert on 2/25/24, seven months after the Court initially ordered Defendant’s expert to sit for deposition and days before the Court’s second date for the deposition.

While the issue of whether a deposition of Defendant’s former expert needs to occur may be moot, Defendant’s willful disobedience of this Court’s 7/24/23 order is not. Nowhere in Defendant’s late-filed opposition does Defendant explain why it waited seven months to de-designate its expert witness or provide any explanation for its blatant disregard of the Court’s order requiring Defendant to produce the expert for deposition. In short, Defendant failed its burden to show its discovery violation was not willful. The Court therefore exercises its discretion to grant the motion and impose sanctions.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted, and the Court exercises its discretion to impose evidentiary sanctions, but not monetary and/or issue sanctions. Accordingly, at trial Defendant shall not be permitted to present any facts or evidence in opposition to Plaintiff’s claims for breach of implied warranty and breach of express warranty under Song-Beverly.