Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV28951, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28951    Hearing Date: October 5, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

            Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to repair 2021 Land Rover Sport they leased to comply with applicable warranties.

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant Jaguar Land Rover NA, LLC to produce a Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian of Records to be deposed, and request sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Cherae Stovall’s motion to compel Defendant’s PMK deposition is GRANTED. The deposition is to occur on April 4, 2024 as agreed upon by the parties, unless Plaintiff serves another deposition notice with an earlier date and the parties cannot agree to that earlier date, at which time, Plaintiff may bring a motion to compel as to that notice.

            No order compelling production of documents will issue at this time.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Matthew C. Wolf and Lauren K Vandenburg of Turner Henningsen Wolf & Vandenburg, LLP is GRANTED in the requested amount of $1,641.75, jointly and severally. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.

DISCUSSION:

Motion To Compel Deposition

Plaintiff move for an order compelling Defendant Jaguar Land Rover NA, LLC to produce a Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian of Records to be deposed, and request sanctions.

            Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.450 provides in pertinent part:

(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410[1], 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.

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

 (1) 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.

 (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a 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.

. . .

(g) 

 (1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.
. . .

     (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.450(a), (b), (g)[bold emphasis added].)

            Plaintiff noticed a PMK deposition to occur on January 9, 2023, but Defendant served objections and refused to produce its PMK due to counsel’s inability to appear on that date. Defendant’s counsel has failed to provide alternative dates for the deposition to occur, so Plaintiff brings this motion.

            In the Opposition, Defendant argues that the parties have agreed to an April 4, 2024 deposition date. Defendant argues that this is a motion to advance that deposition date. However, this motion was filed before the parties apparently agreed upon this date, so Plaintiff was entitled to file this motion to obtain a motion to compel a PMK deposition.

            Filing an objection pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.450 only entitles Defendant to the protection of Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.410(b), which provides in pertinent part:

Any deposition taken after the service of a written objection shall not be used against the objecting party under Section 2025.620 if the party did not attend the deposition and if the court determines that the objection was a valid one.

(Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.410(b).)

            Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.280(a) provides:

(a) The service of a deposition notice under Section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280(a)[bold emphasis added].)

       Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.230 provides:

If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.

     (Bold emphasis added.)

            Defendant is required to designate and produce a PMK on the noticed deposition topics, absent having obtained a protective order pursuant to CCP § 2025.420[2] that a PMK need not be produced on certain topics.

            Plaintiff’s counsel made a sufficient meet and confer effort as required by Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.420(b)(2). (See Declaration of Christopher Urner, ¶ 5; Exh. 3.)

However, Plaintiff did not make the good cause showing required by Civ. Proc. Code,, § 2025.450(b)(1), as to each of the 41 categories of documents requested in the Notice of Deposition, Exh. A. (See Urner Decl., Exh. 1.)

            As such, the motion to compel Defendant’s PMK deposition is GRANTED. The deposition is to occur on April 4, 2024 as agreed upon by the parties, unless Plaintiff serves another deposition notice with an earlier date and the parties cannot agree to that earlier date, at which time, Plaintiff may bring a motion to compel as to that notice.

            No order compelling production of documents will issue at this time.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Matthew C. Wolf and Lauren K Vandenburg of Turner Henningsen Wolf & Vandenburg, LLP is GRANTED in the requested amount of $1,641.75, jointly and severally. (Urner Decl., ¶¶ 10, 11.) Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.