Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV00480, Date: 2024-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00480    Hearing Date: August 12, 2024    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Edwin Chacon’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable

Plaintiff Edwin Chacon moves to compel the deposition of defendant General Motors, LLC’s person most knowledgeable.  One may move to compel the deposition of a party who fails to appear at deposition “without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410.”  (CCP § 2025.450(a).)  The notice of defendant’s deposition includes 12 matters of examination and 8 document requests.  (Lara Decl., Ex. 1.)   

Matters of Examination

Matter No. 1 is, “All repairs to the Subject Vehicle … including all attempts to diagnose its problems and the time spent diagnosing its problems.”  Defendant agreed to produce a witness to testify about the vehicle’s repair history as shown by a “Global Warranty History Report” and “any repair orders for the Subject Vehicle that GM may have obtained from GM-authorized dealership(s).”  Defendant thus proposed a reasonable limit to the matters of examination.  Defendant’s objections to matter No. 1 are sustained.

Matter No. 2 is, “All Technical Service Bulletins applicable to the Subject Vehicle, including those superseded.”  Defendant agreed to produce a witness “to testify about any warranty repairs performed on the Subject Vehicle pursuant to a TSB.”  Matter No. 5 is, “All recalls applicable to the Subject Vehicle, including those superseded.”  Defendant objected but agreed to produce a witness “to testify about the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s repair history, including the recall repairs performed.” 

Plaintiff shows good cause to demand testimony about all TSBs and all recalls.  TSBs or recalls applicable to the vehicle that were not reflected in the repair orders or warranty history.  That defendant issued a TSB or recall but did not apply it to the vehicle would be probative as to whether defendant repaired the vehicle to conform to warranty.  Defendant’s objections to matter Nos. 2 and 5 are overruled.

Matter No. 3 is, “Why these Technical Service Bulletins were issued.”  No. 4 is, “The process by which a Technical Service Bulletin is issued including but not limited to all criteria, data, or information relied upon.”  Nos. 6 is, “Why these recalls were issued.” 

Defendant objected to these matters based on the trade secret privilege.  “In resolving a claim of trade secret privilege, the party claiming the privilege has the initial burden of proving its existence.”  (Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1, 13, disapproved on other grounds by Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 335.)  A trade secret is information “ ‘that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.’ ”  (Ibid.) 

Defendant meets its burden of showing the trade secret privilege applies.  Lu testifies about the value of confidential information about GM’s vehicles, their components, how GM evaluates its products, how GM investigates problems in its products, and meeting minutes about the design, manufacture, and performance of GM vehicles.  (Id., ¶¶ 12-38.)  He states “GM LLC derives value” from the confidentiality of its engineering information.  (Id., ¶ 11.)  “Knowing GM LLC’s confidential engineering and business information would give a competitor the ability to readily compare its processes and designs with those of GM LLC.”  (Id., ¶ 12.)  “[A] competitor could save substantial developmental costs associated with evaluation and development without compensating GM LLC for the expenses incurred through years in studying, processing, testing, designing, and otherwise developing the components in GM LLC vehicles.”  (Ibid.)  Lu further states, “GM LLC’s engineering and business information can be used by others to quickly create and sell counterfeit automotive components or to create competing vehicle lines.”  (Ibid.)  For the second element, Lu explains details of GM’s security protocols in protecting its “confidential engineering and business information,” including by limiting its own employees’ access to the information.  (Id., ¶ 10.)

Defendant’s objections to matters Nos. 3, 4, and 6 are sustained.

Matter No. 7 is, “Defendant’s failure to repurchase Plaintiff’s Vehicle.”  Defendant objected on numerous grounds but agreed to produce a witness to testify about “the relevant and nonprivileged aspects of this Category.”  Defendant does not justify its objections.  Defendant’s objections to No. 7 are overruled.

Matter Nos. 8 and 9 are policies and procedures for investigating whether to repurchase a vehicle and warranty policies. Nos. 11 and 12 are repair procedures and diagnostic procedures consulted and following regarding plaintiff’s vehicle.  These matters are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Defendant’s objections are overruled. 

Defendant agreed to produce a witness for matter No. 10 and did not object. 

Document Requests

            Document request Nos. 1 and 2 demand various documents related to the subject vehicle and repairs made to it.  No. 5 demands documents “reflecting Defendant’s investigation into whether Plaintiff’s Vehicle should be repurchased.”  Defendant agreed to produce specified documents.  Defendant proposed reasonable limits to the requests.  Defendant’s objections to request Nos. 1, 2, and 5 are sustained. 

            Request Nos. 3 and 4 ask for all TSBs and recalls applicable to the subject vehicle.  The same reasoning discussed above regarding matter of examination Nos. 2 and 5 apply.  Defendant’s objections to Nos. 3 and 4 are overruled.

Request No. 6 demands documents corresponding to matter of examination No. 8.  Request No. 7 demands documents corresponding to matter of examination No. 11.  Request No. 8 demands documents corresponding to matter of examination No. 12.  These requests are discoverable for the same reasons as the corresponding matters of examination.  Defendant’s objections to request Nos. 6, 7, and 8 are overruled.

Disposition

Plaintiff Edwin Chacon’s motion to compel the deposition of General Motors, LLC’s person most knowledgeable is granted in part as to matters of examination Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 and document requests Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8. 

Defendant General Motors, LLC is ordered to produce its person(s) most knowledgeable to testify about matters of examination Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 within 30 days.  Defendant is ordered to produce documents responsive to request Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 at the deposition.  Defendant must also produce a witness and documents for the other categories in accordance with its responses.