Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 21STCV33306, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV33306 Hearing Date: January 18, 2023 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Pulido vs. General
Motors LLC, et. al., Case No. 21STCV33306
Tentative Ruling
re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Deposition of PMK
Plaintiff Miguel Pulido (Plaintiff)
moves for an order compelling Defendant
General Motors, LLC (Defendant) to produce its PMK for deposition and to
produce documents. The motion is granted in part, as to Category Nos. 1,
5-7, 9-14, and 18-21, and as to Request Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 14-17. The motion is otherwise denied. Defendant shall produce documents and make
the PMK available within thirty (30) days of today’s date.
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 of extent of use of an authorized discovery method.
Plaintiff served the Notice of
Deposition for Defendant’s PMK on November 4, 2021. (Shumake Decl. ¶ 6.) The
Notice listed of 21 categories of testimony and 17 requests for documents. (Id.,
Ex. 1.) Defendant served objections to the Notice on November 9, 2021. (Id.,
Ex. 2.)
As an
initial matter, while Defendant argues in the Opposition that certain
categories and requests seek production of trade secret material, Defendant did
not make this objection in any of its responses. Consequently, the Court will
not consider this argument.
Defendant’s responses did not make
any objections to Category Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, or 14, or to Request Nos.
1, 2, or 4. Accordingly, the motion is granted as to those categories and
requests.
Technical Service Bulletins
Category
Nos. 2 and 3 and Request No. 3 seek testimony and documents regarding “All
Technical Service Bulletins applicable to the Subject Vehicle, including those
superseded,” and “Why these TSBs were issued.” Defendant objected on the basis
that the categories and requests seek information regarding “all” TSBs applicable
to the vehicle, i.e., not limited to those TSBs used during service of
Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Court agrees with Defendant that TSBs unrelated to the
alleged defects affecting Plaintiff’s vehicle go beyond the scope of
Plaintiff’s claims in this action. Furthermore, Defendant states that it will
produce a list of all TSBs issued for vehicles of the same year, make, and
model as the Subject Vehicle, and that it will produce a witness to testify on
any specific TSBs chosen by Plaintiff.
The
motion is denied as to Category Nos. 2 and 3 and Request No. 3.
Defendant’s policies and
procedures
Certain categories and requests
seek information regarding Defendant’s general policies and procedures for
issuing Technical Service Bulletins (Category 4), and for evaluating vehicle
repurchases under California Lemon Law (Category 8, Request No. 6). Defendant
objected to these subjects as overbroad on the basis that they seek information
not limited to Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant also objected on the basis that
the information is protected by attorney-client privilege.
The Court agrees with Defendant
that these categories and requests are not sufficiently tailored to Plaintiff’s
claims, and so denies the motion as to Categories 4 and 8 and Request No.
6.
Repair and diagnostic
procedures followed during service of the Subject Vehicle
Category
Nos. 1, 11, and 12 and Request Nos. 7 and 8 seek information regarding
Defendant’s repairs on Plaintiff’s vehicle, and diagnostic and repair
procedures consulted while diagnosing and repairing the vehicle. Defendant
objected to these topics on the basis that Defendant’s authorized dealerships,
and not Defendant itself, performed the maintenance and warranty repairs for
Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Plaintiff
has shown good cause for discovery into the procedures followed in diagnosing
and repairing his vehicle, given that his claims in this action arise from
Defendant’s alleged failure to properly repair the vehicle.
Defendant
has not presented any valid objection to these topics. Where a party is unable
to comply with a demand for inspection, the party’s response should “affirm that
a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply
with that demand,” specify the reasons for the inability to comply, and “set
forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or
believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or
category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.) While Defendant suggests that
it is unable to comply with these requests because the dealership entities
performed the repairs on Plaintiff’s vehicle, Defendant has failed to make the
required showing for inability to comply. Accordingly,
the motion is granted as to Category Nos. 1, 11, and 12, and Request Nos. 7 and
8.
Individuals involved in
repurchase decision
Many
of the categories and requests seek information regarding Defendant’s managers,
supervisors, and other individuals “responsible for ensuring that vehicles are
repurchased under the California Lemon Law at the time of Plaintiff’s contact
and currently with [Defendant]…” (Categories 15-17; Requests 9-13.) The
information requested includes the identity of those individuals, “agreements
in place, including but not limited to indemnity agreement, service agreements, and operating agreements for
the production of these individuals at deposition”
(Category 16, Request 12), and “[Defendant’s] ability to produce any of these
individuals for deposition” (Category 17, Request 13). There are also a number
of similar categories and requests directed specifically at a customer service
representative named Shakita, who appears to have been responsible for handling
Plaintiff’s repurchase request. (Categories 18-20; Requests 14-16.)
“Discovery
may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any
discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition, and location of any document, electronically
stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code
Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)
The
Court finds that these categories and requests are overbroad insofar as they
seek contact information of persons uninvolved in Plaintiff’s repurchase
request. Accordingly, the motion is denied as to Category Nos. 15 through 17
and Request Nos. 9 through 13.
The
motion is granted as to the categories and requests concerning Shakita, the
customer service representative who allegedly handled Plaintiff’s repurchase
case; those are Category Nos. 18 through 20 and Request Nos. 14 through 16. For
similar reasons, the motion is also granted as to Request No. 5, which seeks “[a]ll documents reflecting Defendant’s investigation into whether
Plaintiff’s Vehicle should be repurchased.”
Recall documents
Category
No. 21 and Request No. 17 seek information that “led to the issuance of Recall N202314670, including
but not limited to the number of customer
complaints, amounts paid for repairs, technical hotline inquiries, and any and all data/information relied upon or utilized by
GM in the issuance and/or publication of the
recall.” Plaintiff alleges that his vehicle was affected by defects related to
Recall N202311731, specifically, a defective battery and high voltage system
warning message. (Comp. ¶ 11.)
Defendant
objected to these topics as overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Court
disagrees. These requests are not overbroad given that the Recall is alleged to
have been made based on the defects affecting Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant
has also failed to present evidence in support of its objection based on
burden. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los
Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417 [“The objection based
upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required”].) The motion is therefore granted as to Category No. 21 and
Request No. 17.
In sum, the motion is granted as to
Category Nos. 1, 5-7, 9-14, and 18-21, and as to Request Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8,
and 14-17.
The motion is denied as to
Categories 2-4, 8, and 15-17, and as to Request Nos. 3, 6, and 9-13.