Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV08657, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling
Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.
Case Number: 22STCV08657 Hearing Date: December 14, 2022 Dept: 52
Plaintiff
Arnoldo Valencia moves to compel the deposition of defendant General Motors
LLC’s person(s) most qualified on 26 matters of examination with 17 document
requests. A party may move to compel a
deponent to testify and produce documents if it failed to do so without having
served a valid objection. (CCP §
2025.450(a).)
Plaintiff did not adequately
attempt to informally resolve this dispute.
A motion to compel deposition “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer
declaration under Section 2016.040.”
(CCP § 2025.450.) Section
2016.040 provides, “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall
state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal
resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”
This requirement aims “to
encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid
the necessity for a formal order.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177
Cal.App.4th 1277, 1293.) “[T]he law
requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views,
consult, and deliberate.” (Townsend
v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.)
On August 15, 2022, plaintiff
served notice of deposition of defendant’s person(s) most qualified to testify
on August 31. (Davina Decl., ¶ 3, Ex.
A.) Defendant timely served objections
on August 22. (Id., ¶ 6, Ex. C.) Defendant agreed to produce a witness (on an
unspecified date) to some of the matters of examination and agreed to produce
some documents in response to the requests for production.
Plaintiff did not attempt to resolve
“each issue presented by the motion” before filing it. (CCP § 2016.040.) Plaintiff’s declaration shows an attempt to
resolve only the most trivial of the issues: the deposition’s date. (Davina Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, 7, Ex. B.) Plaintiff shows zero effort to resolve the
substantive issues presented by this motion: defendant’s objections to the
matters of examination and document requests.
Plaintiff’s separate statement in support of the motion includes all 26
matters of examination and all 17 document requests. Plaintiff must make a reasonable and good
faith attempt to resolve those disputes before the court will turn to their
merits.
The court exercises its discretion
to deny the motion except as to compelling defendant to produce a witness and
documents as it agreed in its response to plaintiff’s notice of deposition.
Disposition
Plaintiff Arnoldo Valencia’s motion
is denied as to compelling defendant General Motors LLC
to produce a witness for all matters of examination and to produce all
requested documents specified in the notice of deposition.
The motion is granted in part as to compelling General Motors LLC to testify
at deposition and produce documents as it agreed in its response to the notice
of deposition, subject to its objections.
Defendant General Motors, LLC is ordered to propose three dates between January 2,
2023, and January 20, 2023, for the deposition.
Plaintiff must choose one of the three options defendant provides.