Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21AHCV00087, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21AHCV00087 Hearing Date: October 12, 2022 Dept: 3
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – NORTHEAST District
Department
3
|
vs. GenerAL MOTORS, LLC; and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, |
Case
No.: |
21AHCV00087 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
October
12, 2022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Tentative]
Order RE: plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition
of Defendant’s Person(s) Most Qualified |
||
|
|
|
|
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Armando Gonzalez Dozal
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors, LLC
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Person Most Qualified
The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in
connection with the motion.
BACKGROUND
This is a “lemon law” case concerning
persistent engine and shifter problems with a 2019 Chevrolet Traverse vehicle.
Plaintiff Armando Gonzalez Dozal purchased the subject vehicle in 2018 from
General Motors (“Defendant”) and received express written warranties from
Defendant for the same. Plaintiff presented the vehicle to Defendant for repair
on at least four occasions, but the repairs were unsuccessful. On November 11,
2021, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for failure to comply with
provisions of the express and implied warranties
On December 21, 2021, Plaintiff
served a deposition notice for Defendant’s Person Most Qualified and Demand to
Produce Documents via email on December 20, 2021. (Oliva Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. 2.) On
January 31, 2022, Defendant served responses and objections to the deposition
notice by email. (Oliva Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. 3.) Between February 2 and June 24, Plaintiff’s
counsel attempted to confer via email regarding Defendant’s witnesses’ dates of
availability. (See Oliva Decl., ¶¶ 14, 15, Ex. 4.) Having received no response,
Plaintiff served an amended deposition notice which unilaterally set the
deposition date to occur on July 27, 2022.
(Oliva Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. 5.) On
July 21, 2022, Defendant again served objections to Plaintiff’s deposition
notice and stated that no witness would be produced on the date unilaterally
noticed by Plaintiff, but that a witness would be produced on categories 1-4,
7, and 10 on a “mutually agreeable time and place.” (Oliva Decl., ¶ 18, Ex. 6.)
On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff proceeded with the deposition as noticed and took
an Affidavit of Non-Appearance when Defendant failed to appear. (Oliva Decl., ¶ 19, Ex. 7.)
Following another attempt to meet
and confer and Defendant’s failure to provide PMQ deposition dates of
availability, Plaintiff filed this motion for an order compelling Defendant to
produce its PMQ at deposition.
Any
party may obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any person,
including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010.) Service of a
proper deposition notice 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, subd. (a).) If, after service of a deposition notice, a
party fails to appear for examination or fails to produce for inspection any
document described in the deposition notice, without having served a valid
objection under section 2025.410, the party noticing the deposition may move
for an order compelling attendance or production. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450,
subd. (a).) Such a motion “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer
declaration.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)[1]
DISCUSSION
The
Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel, the
distinction turning on Plaintiff’s failure to submit a separate statement as
required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345. A separate statement
permits the court to analyze efficiently the discovery dispute at issue. Plaintiff’s
non-existent separate statement unduly burdened the court’s ability to analyze
the validity of Defendant’s objections to PMQ topics to which Defendant
objected, an analysis the court must undertake to rule on Plaintiff’s motion
to compel on those topics. On the other hand, the court need not analyze Defendant’s
objections to PMQ topics 1-4 and 9 – and thus the missing separate statement
does not unduly burden the court – because Defendant has agreed to provide a
PMQ witness for those topics; Plaintiff’s grievance is simply that Defendant
has not produced that witness, which is tantamount to a failure to respond for
which a separate statement is unnecessary.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the
court orders Defendant to produce a PMQ witness(es) for topics 1-4 and 9 at a date
and time of Plaintiff’s selection within 20 days of this order.
Plaintiff is ordered to give
notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Colin
Leis
Judge
of the Superior Court
[1]
The court notes the seemingly common, yet improper, practice of submitting
reporters’ transcripts from Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty discovery hearings
not involving the parties here and referring in this case to those
transcripts. (Major Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.) This practice must stop.