Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2023-00028901-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - July 02, 2024

07/03/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00028901-CU-BC-CTL TERRONES VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Gabriel Terrones' Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant General Motors, LLC's Person Most Qualified and Production of Documents is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

In this case, Plaintiff alleged General Motors sold him a vehicle with defects and non-conformities to warranty, agreed to replace Plaintiff's vehicle and then failed to provide the replacement vehicle. (ROA 9 – FAC.) Plaintiff served a notice of deposition on General Motors' person most qualified. (ROA 17 – Declaration of Deborah Horowitz, at Ex. A.) Service of a deposition notice requires a party witness to attend, testify and produce documents requested in the notice. (C.C.P., § 2025.280(a).) C.C.P. section 2025.450(a) permits a motion to compel when a party fails to proceed with the deposition or to produce documents after service of a deposition notice. C.C.P. section 2025.480(a) also allows courts to compel deposition answers.

Plaintiff sufficiently met and conferred. General Motors objected to the deposition notice, in part, because Plaintiff 'unilaterally noticed' the deposition. The evidence shows General Motors ignored Plaintiff's efforts to identify a mutually agreeable deposition date. (Horowitz Decl., at Ex. C-H.) The Court also held four informal discovery conferences related to this case's discovery disputes. (ROA 41, 46, 51, 53.) Although a motion to compel documents at a deposition requires a separate statement (CRC 3.1345(a)(5) and Plaintiff did not file one with this motion, the Court is prepared to proceed on the substantive merits and declines to deny the motion on this procedural ground.

Based on the evidence provided, General Motors refused to proceed with the noticed deposition of its person most qualified, warranting an order compelling the deposition testimony. General Motors' objection plainly states it 'will not produce a witness at the date and time noticed but will produce a witness at a mutually convenient time and place.' (Horowitz Decl., at Ex. B, ¶ 1.) General Motors then ignored Plaintiff's multiple efforts to find a convenient date.

The categories of deposition topics are also within the broad scope of discovery as they relate to either: (i) Plaintiff; (ii) the subject vehicle; (iii) the replacement vehicle; (iv) General Motors' policies for repurchasing or replacing vehicles; and (v) training regarding repurchase or replacement. General Motors' contention that Plaintiff's motion seeks to compel testimony unrelated to any repairs to Plaintiff's vehicle under warranty is wholly unpersuasive in light of: (i) the substance of the topics requested; and (ii) Plaintiff's allegations that General Motors agreed to but refuses to provide a replacement vehicle.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054692  42 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  TERRONES VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00028901-CU-BC-CTL The documents requested are also discoverable. Again, Plaintiff's document requests are narrowly tailored to Plaintiff, the vehicle purchased, the alleged replacement vehicle and policies regarding buybacks or replacements.

In opposition, General Motors maintains the requests seek trade secret material. No evidence is provided supporting the application of this privilege. Although the opposition declaration cites to the Declaration of Huizhen Lu, this declaration is not attached nor provided as indicated.

Moreover, if it is the Declaration of Huizhen Lu that General Motors and this counsel has repeatedly offered to the Court in other cases and discovery motions, the Court has made it abundantly clear that it will not be considered. This declaration is over five-years old, dated October 25, 2018, does not concern this case, fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1115 as it does not 'specifically identify the motion or other proceeding that it supports or opposes,' and the Court has previously admonished General Motors and its counsel in other cases about using this declaration in support of its opposition to discovery motions. (E.g., San Diego Superior Court Case No. 2023-11361 – ROA 68; San Diego Superior Court Case No. 2022-16480 – ROA 119; San Diego Superior Court Case No. 2022-27843 – ROA 72.) Plaintiff's supporting declaration includes a request for an order of attorney fees and costs. A request for a sanction must be stated in the notice of motion and supported in the memorandum and accompanying declaration. (C.C.P., § 2023.040.) Here, no such request is made in the notice of motion and there is no legal analysis provided in the memorandum. The request for fees and costs is denied.

For these reasons, the motion to compel the deposition of General Motors' person most qualified and the accompanying document production is GRANTED and the request for fees and costs is DENIED.

Concluding Orders Defendant General Motors, LLC is ordered to produce its person most qualified for deposition and responsive documents at a mutually-agreeable date and time no later than August 2, 2024.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the minute order will be the Court's final order.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court's final order on all appearing parties by July 9, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054692  42