Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2023-00017840-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 18, 2024

01/19/2024  10:00:00 AM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00017840-CU-BC-NC ELDER VS. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 11/08/2023

The Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant's Person Most Qualified and Production of Documents brought by plaintiff Joseph Elder (Plaintiff) is GRANTED. Defendant General Motors LLC (General Motors) is ORDERED to designate a 'person most qualified,' to make that person available for deposition by no later than Wednesday, January 24, 2024, and to bring and produce responsive documents at the time of that deposition.

General Motors opposes the motion on grounds that some of the items in the scope of the deposition and requested documents are overbroad. That is not grounds for failing to sit for deposition. On the contrary, the law obliges a deponent to sit for deposition and object at deposition, as needed, to preserve objections for trial. And, if something at the deposition is privileged, the parties have the objection of objecting and declining to respond to preserve the issue for a motion, but they must do so with regard to specific inquiries – not an across-the-board approach of failing to comply with a notice of deposition.

The Court is mindful that the date being set for deposition is relatively short. In so exercising discretion to set the deposition date, the Court first notes that standard practice allows for a deposition to be noticed as soon at 10 days. Beyond that, the Court also notes that the deposition notice that went out in this case went out in July 2023. Moreover, the Court also notes that the parties appeared before this Court for an informal discovery conference in October 2023 on this very issue. It would appear that from taking a recalcitrant position, General Motors has been able to significantly delay deposition – from a time as potentially short as 10 days to a current time delay of approximately six months. Moreover, being readily-familiar with its own docket, the Court has come to see a recurring tactical approach across multiple lemon law cases by both General Motors and by counsel representing General Motors in this case – an approach of simply not participating in the deposition process. One such case was the case of GeoCon Leasing Services v. General Motors, LLC (S.D. Sup. Ct. Case No. 22-43463), which involved General Motors as a defendant and which involved the same law firm representing General Motors as is representing General Motors in the instant case. The Court, on its own motion, takes judicial notice of the entire publicly-available records and files in that GeoCon case pursuant to Evidence Code § 451, et seq., noting that it appears to be the case that is referenced in the Notice of Motion in the instant case, which makes the following reference: The Court warned Defendant that the very same disputed issue has arisen in other cases in this same Court and that Defendant should comply with the discovery rules or face possible sanctions such as were imposed in two cases involving similar motions against General Motors, LLC, the rulings of which were issued on or about October 13, 2022 and December 9, 2022 by this Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3050316 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ELDER VS. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00017840-CU-BC-NC The GeoCon case is the October 13, 2022 ruling, and in that ruling this Court indicated: ...it is now appearing from the repetition of this problem that General Motors is failing to appear for depositions routinely as a matter of practice and policy – rather than as a matter of circumstance and scheduling. The Court finds this troubling.

...Should the Court continue to see routine, boilerplate motions identifying this exact same problem and defending on grounds that a plaintiff 'unilaterally' set a deposition date, the circumstances may present a scenario in which it is appropriate to exercise discretion to move beyond the 'lesser sanctions first' approach typically utilized in discovery and perhaps award sanctions above and beyond mere monetary sanctions, as the awarding of monetary sanctions seems to have limited impact in terms of discouraging what is becoming routine behavior by defendant General Motors and its counsel.

(GeoCon, S.D. Sup. Ct. No. 22-43463, ROA 49, p. 2.) Plaintiff in the present motion does not appear to have requested monetary sanctions, so the Court declines to award any in a vacuum (i.e. without specifics as to the costs and attorney fees associated with bringing the motion). The Court nonetheless sets the deposition to take place on relatively short notice to make clear that the conduct General Motors and its counsel appear to be engaged in is not well taken.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3050316