Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV16717, Date: 2024-03-11 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 21STCV16717    Hearing Date: March 11, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

Plaintiffs Jorge Hernandez Camacho and Sara Martinez sue Defendants Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. (Toyota USA) and Does 1 through 10 pursuant to a May 18, 2023, Complaint alleging claims of (1) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, and (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2.

The claims arise from the following allegations. On February 16, 2019, Plaintiffs purchased a 2019 Toyota Corolla (the Vehicle), pursuant to which Toyota USA and Plaintiffs entered express and implied warranties. According to those warranties, Toyota USA would conform any defects that arose in the Vehicle within the warranty period within a reasonable number of attempts or instead repurchase or replace the Vehicle. However, the Vehicle later manifested defects and nonconformities within the applicable warranty period, which Toyota USA was unable to repair or conform to warranty after a reasonable number of attempts, with Toyota USA also refusing to repurchase or replace the Vehicle.

B. Motion Before the Court

On February 13, 2024, Toyota USA filed a motion to compel the Plaintiffs’ deposition and for sanctions against Plaintiffs and/or counsel.

On February 27, 2024. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Toyota USA’s motion.

On March 4, 2024, Toyota USA filed a reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition.

Toyota USA’s motion is now before the Court.

II. Motion to Compel Depositions and for Monetary Sanctions

A. Motion to Compel Deposition: GRANTED.

1. Legal Standard

If, [1] after service of a deposition notice, [2] a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, [3] without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, [4] fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, [5] 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) [Arabic numerals added for clarity].)

The motion shall 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).)

The motion shall also 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)

2. Analysis

a. Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a)

Here, Toyota USA attaches copies of documents showing Toyota USA’s December 17, 2021, and October 31, 2023, service of notices and amended notice of deposition on Plaintiffs. (Mot., Jo Decl., Exs. A-B [Dec. 17, 2021 service], C-D [Oct. 31, 2023 service], E [Nov. 14, 2023 follow up].)

While Plaintiffs argue that they did not fail to appear at the deposition because the deposition never went forward, the Court disagrees and concludes that Plaintiffs, by objecting to the deposition notices, de facto failed to appear or proceed with their noticed depositions. (Opp’n, pp. 1-2.) There is certainly no evidence that despite their objections, Plaintiffs appeared.

Moreover, while Plaintiffs argue that their offer to submit to three deposition dates in April 2024 has mooted Toyota USA’s motion, the Court disagrees. The offer was made on February 27, 2024, the same day the opposition to this motion was filed. No deposition has actually taken place and defendant seeks a court order to ensure that it will take place, as well as the payment of certain monetary sanctions. (Opp’n, p. 2.)

The only remaining question is whether Plaintiffs raised valid objections to the deposition notices.

A review of the moving papers shows a declaration from counsel stating that Plaintiffs objected to the initial deposition notices and the amended deposition notices but failing to state what those objections were or to attach the objections to the moving papers. (Mot., Jo Decl., ¶¶ 4, 7.) Neither does the opposition nor the reply attach or repeat those objections verbatim. (Cf. Reply, p. 2 [“Plaintiffs served objections to both TMS’ properly served notices of deposition for December 30, 2021[,] and November 14, 2023. (Declaration of Stefanie G. Jo (‘Jo Decl.’), ¶ 2, Exhibits A-B.)”].)

However, neither party disputes Toyota USA’s position, thus the Court need not further discuss the objections. Plaintiffs could have raised this in their opposition, but they instead limited their discussion to procedural defects in whether they “failed to appear” and whether this motion was mooted by their offer to submit to depositions in April 2024. (Opp’n, pp. 1-2.)

The Court thus determines Toyota USA has standing to move to compel the initial attendance of Plaintiffs at a deposition.

b. Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1)

The Court further determines that good cause exists for production of the documents requested in the amended deposition notices because these requests are within the scope of discovery. This is because the requests are directed to discovery of documents on which Plaintiffs are relying to establish liability against Toyota USA in this lemon law action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

c. Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2)

The Court finds that Toyota USA sufficiently followed up regarding scheduling follow-up deposition dates for Plaintiffs. (Mot., Jo Decl., Exs. A, C [emails showing service of deposition notices and amended deposition notices], E [follow-up message sent after service of the amended deposition notices].)

d. Compel Deposition Conclusion

Because Toyota USA has met all statutory requirements that must be met for the Court to compel a deposition of Plaintiffs, Toyota USA’s motion is GRANTED as to this relief.

B. Monetary Sanctions: GRANTED.

1. Legal Standard

If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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).)

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

2. Analysis

Here, the Court determines that sanctions are merited based on Plaintiffs’ refusal to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

While Plaintiffs argue that it would be unjust to impose monetary sanctions on them where there has been no showing of bad faith and Plaintiffs have proposed deposition dates, i.e., the three April 2024 deposition dates (Opp’n, p. 2), the opposition itself recognizes by proposing those dates that Plaintiffs should submit to depositions related to this action. Moreover, Plaintiffs fails to offer a proper explanation for their two-year delay in agreeing to submit to depositions, which they did for the first time on February 27, 2024, i.e., the date on which Plaintiffs filed their opposition, well after service of the deposition notices and amended deposition notices on December 17, 2021, and October 31, 2023. (Reply, Jo Decl., ¶ 6; Mot., Jo Decl., Exs. A-B, Proof of Service.) Prior to this, as of the time Toyota USA filed its motion on February 13, 2024, Plaintiffs had failed to respond to the deposition notices and amended deposition notices. (Reply, Jo Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)

The Court also determines that sanctions are appropriate in the requested amount of $1,750 because this figure comprises a reasonable fee for the time spent in relation to this motion. (Mot., Jo Decl., ¶ 10.)

Last, the Court determines that sanctions are appropriate as to Plaintiffs and counsel, Knight Law Group, LLP, Roger Kirnos (SBN 283163), and Angelica Zamudio (SBN 351803).

Sanctions are thus GRANTED in the amount of $1,750 jointly and severally against Plaintiffs and counsel stated above. 

III. Conclusion

Defendant Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Depositions and Request for Sanctions [CRS# 6045] is GRANTED.

A. Depositions of Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs Jorge Hernandez Camacho and Sara Martinez are ORDERED to appear at depositions within 21 days of this order.

Plaintiffs Jorge Hernandez Camacho and Sara Martinez and Defendant Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. are ORDERED to meet and confer regarding mutually agreeable deposition dates.

B. Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiffs Jorge Hernandez Camacho and Sara Martinez and counsel, Knight Law Group, LLP, Roger Kirnos (SBN 283163), and Angelica Zamudio (SBN 351803), are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to remit payment of $1,750 to Defendant Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. within 30 days of this ruling.