Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 22PSCV00683, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV00683, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS is CONTINUED as the parties are to meet and confer in good faith.

On July 7, 2023, Plaintiffs RICHARD MACIEL and MARIANNE MACIEL filed suit against Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC alleging Defendant’s breach of the express written warranty; Defendant’s breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; Defendant’s failure to repair or repurchase the Subject Vehicle; Defendant’s failure to commence or complete repairs within 30 days; and Defendant’s violation of the Song-Beverly Act.

Plaintiff brings forth the motion 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. (Motion p. 2:10-13.)

In turn, Section 2025.450 provides that “[i]f, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action … 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.” (CCP § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

The motion must be accompanied by a good faith 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, subd. (b)(2).) Lastly, “any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion . . . (4) To compel answers at a deposition.”].) (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)[1]

Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s declaration explains that on April 3, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed to meet and confer with Defense counsel to request alternative dates for the deposition of Defendant’s PMK if the amended deposition date provided was also unable to work. “Despite the foregoing, Defendant’s counsel failed to provide any alternative dates. To date, Defendant has failed to participate with Plaintiffs’ counsel’s meet and confer attempts regarding the deposition of GM’s PMK and requests for production of documents and has refused to provide reasonable dates for deposition.”

However, the declaration does not speak to the RFPs moreso coordination of deposition dates. Plus, as explained in opposition, “Plaintiffs have refused to engage with GM on GM’s [] objections to the additional Categories listed in Plaintiffs’ deposition notice.” (Opp. p. 4:1-3.) Furthermore, Defendant explains that it has already produced documents directly responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and has agreed to produce a witness to testify about the service and warranty history of Plaintiffs’ vehicle, communications concerning Plaintiffs’ vehicle, documents related to Plaintiffs’ vehicle, and any repurchase requests made by Plaintiffs.

Thus, the court continues the hearings so allow the parties to meet and confer in good faith.[2] If after further meet and confer efforts issues remain, the parties are to file supplemental briefs that concisely and briefly discuss the relevancy (or irrelevancy) of the RFPs supported a couple of instructive cases.

[1] The separate statement is 294 pages.

[2] To the extent that Plaintiffs rely upon Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967 to support its proposition that “[u]nder Doppes, these documents must be produced,” Doppes (wherein a discovery referee was appointed) was largely concerned with a defendant manufacturer’s intentional withholding and potential destruction of documents. Thus, Doppes, at this stage, is inapplicable. To the extent that Plaintiffs rely upon Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, the case did not involve discovery motions but a jury trial. Therefore, it is inapposite.