Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00385, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00385    Hearing Date: November 21, 2024    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 11/21/2024 – 8:30am
Case No. 23GDCV00385
Trial Date: 02/10/2025
Case Name: FRANCISCO M. PEREZ, an individual; and JOHN C. PEREZ, an individual v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive

TENTATIVE RULING – MOTION TO COMPEL Res ID 6867

RELIEF REQUESTED¿ 
“Plaintiffs FRANCISCO M. PEREZ and JOHN C. PEREZ (“Plaintiffs”) will, and hereby do, move for an order striking Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY’s (“Defendant”) objections and to compel (1) the testimony of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) pertaining to Matters for Examination 1 through 74, and (2) responses and production of documents pursuant to Plaintiffs’ associated Request for Production of Documents, numbers 1-70 (collectively, the “Requests”), at the time of the PMK deposition.

This Motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2025.450 and 2031.310, et seq., on the grounds that Defendant failed to provide a witness to a properly noticed deposition and failed to provide adequate responses to Plaintiffs’ document requests, which seek documents relevant to the asserted Song-Beverly Act claims.

On March 16, 2021, Plaintiffs purchased a 2020 Ford Mustang, having VIN No.: 1FA6P8CF9L5191497 ("the Subject Vehicle”). Defendant warranted the Subject Vehicle and agreed to preserve and maintain the utility and performance of the Subject Vehicle or to provide compensation if there was a failure in such utility or performance.

According to the repair and warranty records, Plaintiffs allege the Subject Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiffs with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty.

To establish the asserted claims, Plaintiffs served PMK deposition notices describing with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested, and the documents for production at deposition. Plaintiffs rightfully seek this testimony and these documents to support Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act.

To date, Defendant has not adequately responded to Plaintiffs´ PMK Deposition Notices, nor has Defendant adequately addressed the contents of Plaintiffs´ meet and confer letters. Furthermore, Defendant has not yet proffered all responsive documents to the associated Request for Production of Documents.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that this Court issue an order (1) striking all of Defendant´s objections as to the Matters of Examination, and compelling Defendant to produce a PMK witness for all Matters of Examination requested in Plaintiffs’ Notice of PMK Deposition; (2) striking all of Defendant´s Request for Production objections, and compelling Defendant to produce all responsive documents requested in Plaintiffs’ Amended Notice of PMK Deposition; and (3) compelling the production of Defendant’s PMK witness and all responsive documents within 10 calendar days from entry of this Court´s Order.

The Motion is based upon this Notice, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Gregory Sogoyan, Esq., the pleadings and papers on file, and upon any other matters that may be presented to the Court at the hearing.”

(Pl. Notice p. 2-3.)

Procedural
Moving Party: Plaintiffs, Francisco M. Perez and John C. Perez (Plaintiffs or Movants)
Responding Party: Defendant, Ford Motor Company (Defendant)

16/21 Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b)): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Ok

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Separate Statement; Sogoyan Declaration; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Opposition Separate Statement

Reply Papers: Reply

BACKGROUND
On 2/24/2023, Plaintiffs, Francisco M. Perez and John C. Perez, filed the instant action against Defendant, Ford Motor Company, alleging three causes of action for: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, and (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2.

The instant action pertains to Plaintiffs’ March 16, 2021 purchase of a 2020 Ford Mustang.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs seek to strike Defendant’s objections and to compel (1) the testimony of Defendant’s PMK pertaining to matters for examination 1-74, and (2) responses and production of documents pursuant to Plaintiffs’ associated RFPs, numbers 1-70.

The Court points Movants to CCP § 2025.450(b)(1)-(2):

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

(1) 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.

(2) The motion shall 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.

(CCP § 2025.450(a)-(b).)

With respect to the meet and confer requirement, Plaintiffs did not meet and confer.

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration explains how the amended deposition notice was served on September 19, 2024. (Sogoyan Decl. ¶ 18.)

However, Segoyan also states he sent a meet and confer letter about the deposition notice on September 19, 2024. (Sogoyan Decl. ¶ 21.)

This makes little sense because that means Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding the amended deposition notice on the same day the deposition notice was sent.

“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.” (CCP § 2016.040.)

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ meet-and-confer letter on September 19, 2024 could not have possibly addressed the issues raised in this motion when Defendant did not even respond to the amended deposition notice until October 1, 2024. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ meet-and-confer letter could not have even addressed the responses that Defendant provided when Plaintiff sent the meet and confer letter before Defendant provided responses.

Further, with respect to the latter half of 2025.450(b)(2), “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,” Plaintiffs also did not meet this requirement.

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration did not state that Plaintiffs contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

Both parties are ordered to meet and confer to resolve the discovery issues they may still have.