Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV00037, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV00037    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Motion filed: 9/27/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Haroon Temueri; and Shaheen Temueri (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: ok¿¿ 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling the Person(s) Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) and Custodian of Records for Defendant to appear in person to be deposed. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions to be imposed against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $1,641.75.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to produce its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable and Custodian of Records to be deposed, and to produce the documents specified in the deposition notice, on or before 4/4/24. The Court imposes $525.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant.

BACKGROUND

On 4/27/23, Plaintiffs served a notice of deposition of Defendant’s PMK. (Ex. 1 to Decl. of Christopher Urner.) Defendant failed to respond to the deposition notice or produce its PMK for the deposition. (Urner Decl. ¶ 4.)

On 9/27/23, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of the Defendant’s PMK and Custodian of Records. No opposition has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

A motion to compel a deposition must (1) “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice;” and (2) “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Id. at subd. (b) [emphasis added].)

1.      Meet and Confer

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that on 8/21/23, he emailed Defendant’s counsel inquiring about the nonappearance and potential future dates for the deposition. (Urner Decl. ¶ 5.) Accordingly, the Court finds that counsel has satisfied the meet-and-confer requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b)(2).)

2.      Good Cause

Here, Plaintiff asserts that there is good cause to depose Defendant’s PMK and custodian of records because “Defendant’s knowledge of the repair history and the engine cut-off and transmission concerns including when it received such information, is relevant to determine whether or not Defendant should have repurchased the vehicle but elected not to which will subject Defendant to civil penalties. … Plaintiffs seek deposition testimony regarding Defendant's belief that the vehicle does not qualify for repurchase under California law and that MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC has no obligation to do so. … The facts surrounding this topic go directly toward liability under the Act and toward whether or not civil penalties may apply.” (Pl.’s Mot. 9:10–10:2.)

The Court agrees and finds that the testimony and documents sought are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendant “willfully” violated the Song-Beverly Act, thereby subjecting it to civil penalties. (Civ. Code § 1794, subd. (c).) The Court further notes that Defendant has failed to oppose the instant motion. Based on the foregoing, the Court orders the deposition of Defendant’s PMK to be taken, with production of the requested documents, on or before 4/4/24.

3.      Sanctions

If the Court grants a motion to compel a deposition, it “shall impose a monetary sanction … in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Here, Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,641.75 to be imposed on Defendant and its counsel. This amount includes: (1) 1.5 hours of Plaintiffs’ attorney’s time spent working on this motion; and (2) an anticipated additional 1.5 hours reading Defendant’s opposition and drafting a reply, at his hourly billing rate of $525.00 per hour. (Urner Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff further seeks to recover an additional $66.75 in filing fees. (Ibid.)

In granting the instant unopposed motion, the Court finds it reasonable to award Plaintiff monetary sanctions against Defendant and/or its counsel in the amount of $525.00. 

CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to produce its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable and Custodian of Records to be deposed, and to produce the documents specified in the deposition notice, on or before 4/4/24. The Court imposes $525.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant.