Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case 21STCV11968 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 21STCV11968, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11968 Hearing Date: March 24, 2023 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Martinez Soto vs .General Motors LLC, et. al., Case No. 21STCV11968

Tentative Ruling re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel PMQ Deposition

Plaintiff Galileo Martinez Soto (Plaintiff) moves for an order compelling Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant) to produce its Person Most Qualified on the categories listed in Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Deposition. The motion is granted.

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral

deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . or employee of a party . . . , without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, 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, 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).)

“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).) To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (See Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117)

Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010 imposes a “reasonably calculated” limitation on the scope of all discovery. Section 2017.020(a) vests the judge with authority to limit the scope of discovery if the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of the discovery sought “clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Section 2019.030 directs the judge to consider the needs of the case, amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and to consider whether the discovery being sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable by a more convenient or less expensive or less burdensome way, when deciding whether to restrict the frequency or extent of use of an authorized discovery method.

Plaintiff served the Notice of PMQ Deposition on Defendant on January 6, 2022. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 17, Ex. 5.) Defendant served objections on February 4, 2022. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 18, Ex. 6.) On January 10, 2023, following unsuccessful attempts at settlement, Plaintiff served Defendant with an Amended Notice of PMQ Deposition, scheduling the deposition for January 30, 2023. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 19, Ex. 7.) Defendant served objections to the Amended Notice via electronic service on January 27, 2023. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 21, Ex. 8.) Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant’s counsel that the objections were untimely. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 9; Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.410, subd. (b).)

On February 6, 2023, Defendant’s counsel told Plaintiff’s counsel that Defendant would check which dates were available for its PMQ in March for a deposition. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that Defendant’s counsel has still failed to provide a date for availability.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.410, subd. (a), “Any party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2025.210) waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled….” Under subdivision (b) of that section, “If an objection is made three calendar days before the deposition date, the objecting party shall make personal service of that objection pursuant to Section 1011 on the party who gave notice of the deposition.”

Defendant served its objections via electronic service on January 27, 2023, three days before the scheduled deposition date. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 21, Ex. 8.) Section 2025.410(b) required Defendant to personally serve its objections on Plaintiff. Because Defendant failed to satisfy this requirement, Defendant waives any “error or irregularity” in the Amended Notice. Defendant’s arguments that the categories listed in the Amended Notice are irrelevant and overly broad are therefore unavailing. Defendant has presented no basis for denying the motion, and has not explained its failure to provide availability for its PMQ.