Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV12202, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12202    Hearing Date: August 14, 2023    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:   

Plaintiff Nahum P. Ramos’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable and Production of Documents

Plaintiff Nahum P. Ramos moves to compel the deposition of defendant General Motors LLC’s person most knowledgeable on matters of examination Nos. 1, 3-14, and 16-34 and to compel production of documents in response to request Nos. 1-16.  One may move to compel the deposition of a party who fails to appear at deposition or produce requested documents “without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410.”  (CCP § 2025.450(a).) 

Plaintiff does not meet his burden of showing he made “a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion” (CCP § 2016.040) as required when moving to compel a deposition (CCP § 2025.450(b)(2)).  Plaintiff’s supporting declaration shows counsel sent a meet and confer letter addressing only one issue: the date of the deposition.  (Treybig Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. 4.)  The letter states, “[T]he deposition was properly noticed for April 13, 2023.  We received objections to the deposition notice without any alternative dates.  We have made multiple attempts to meet and confer on alternative dates for the deposition but have been not heard back from your office.”  (Ibid.) 

The declaration itself also shows only an effort to meet and confer about the date.  Plaintiff’s counsel states, “On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel to request alternative dates for the deposition of Defendant’s PMK if the amended deposition date provided was also unable to work.  Despite the foregoing, Defendant’s counsel failed to provide any alternative dates.  To date, Defendant has failed to participate with Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer attempts regarding the deposition of GM’s PMK and requests for production of documents and has refused to provide reasonable dates for deposition.”  (Treybig Decl., ¶¶ 19-20.)

Plaintiff has shown no attempt to meet and confer about defendant’s objections to the specific matters of examination and categories of documents requested in the amended notice of deposition.  Plaintiff’s separate statement, meanwhile, spends 289 pages on those disputed issues.  The court therefore will deny the motion as to the substance of GM’s objections.  Defendant General Motors LLC’s objections to all matters of examination and requests for production are sustained. 

Defendant did, however, agree to produce a witness “at a mutually agreeable time and place” for matters of examination Nos. 1, 3-10, 12, 13, 18, and 30-34, as limited by its objections.  Defendant also agreed to comply in part in response to requests for production Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, as limited by its objections.  Plaintiff adequately met and conferred on the dispute over the time and place of the deposition and production of documents.  The court therefore will grant the motion as to the matters of examination and requests for production for which defendant agreed to produce a witness and to produce documents.

Disposition

Plaintiff Nahum P. Ramos’s motion to compel the deposition of defendant General Motors LLC’s person most knowledgeable and production of documents is granted in part. 

Defendant General Motors LLC is ordered to produce its person(s) most knowledgeable to testify about matters of examination Nos. 1, 3-10, 12, 13, 18, and 30-34, as limited by its objections, within 10 days.  Defendant General Motors LLC is ordered to produce documents at the deposition in response to requests for production Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 15, and 16, as limited by its objections.