Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV00632, Date: 2025-05-19 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: 23CHCV00632    Hearing Date: May 19, 2025    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51

Date: 5/19/25

Case #23CHCV00632

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Motion filed: 2/3/25                                                                                    JURY TRIAL: 10/6/25

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Raymond Chun; and Julie Bokyung Chun (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: ok¿¿ 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling the Person(s) Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) and Custodian of Records for Defendant to appear in person for a deposition and produce responsive documents within 10 days, and striking Defendant’s objections thereto. Plaintiffs further request monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $3,160.00.

RULING: The motion is off-calendar as moot.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs bring this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code § 1790 et seq.) for a vehicle they purchased on or around 3/26/17, for which Defendant issued the manufacturer’s express warranty. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs allege that “defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period, including but not limited to, infotainment defects; engine defects; transmission defects; electrical defects; seat belt defects,” but Defendant “has failed to either promptly replace the Subject Vehicle or to promptly make restitution in accordance with the Song-Beverly Act.” (Id. at ¶¶ 11–15.)

On 3/6/23, Plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2, subd. (d); (2) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2, subd. (b); (3) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2, subd. (a)(3); (4) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and (5) Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment. On 5/5/23, Defendant filed its answer.

On 10/2/23, Plaintiffs served an amended notice of deposition of Defendant’s PMK. (Decl. of Anita Marks ¶ 15.) On 10/24/23, Defendant served its objections to Plaintiffs’ deposition notice. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Defendant failed to produce its PMK for the deposition. (Id. at ¶ 17.)

On 2/3/25, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion. On 5/6/25, Defendant filed its opposition. No reply has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

A party may, upon proper written notice, obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any natural person, organization, partnership, association, or governmental agency. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.010, 2025.220.) A party deponent can be required to attend a deposition by service of a deposition notice on the party’s attorney. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, … without having served a valid objection …, fails to appear for examination, … the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant failed to offer dates for the subject deposition, and “hides behind boilerplate objections, which lack any merit, to Obstruct and Delay Plaintiffs’ legitimate discovery efforts.” (Pls.’ Mot. 6:23–24.) In opposition, Defendant asserts that “on February 21, 2025, Honda offered a date of July 17, 2025 for its PMK deposition, which Plaintiffs accepted.” (Def.’s Opp. 2:9–10.) The Court notes that Plaintiffs have failed to file any reply. Based on the foregoing, the motion is off-calendar as moot. The Court declines to issue monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

The motion is off-calendar as moot.