Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV22455, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV22455 Hearing Date: February 21, 2024 Dept: 74
Roberto
Torres v. General Motors, LLC
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified.
The
court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from a defective 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (subject vehicle).
On
July 12, 2022, Plaintiff Roberto Torres (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against
General Motors, LLC (Defendant). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges the
following: violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); violation
of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); violation of Civil Code section
1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); breach of express warranty; and breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability.
On
December 15, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with an amended notice for the
deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified (PMQ).
Defendant
refused to produce its PMQ and objected to multiple categories of examination.
On
January 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel Defendant to produce
for deposition its PMQ on Categories of Examination Nos. 1-5, 10, 12, 14, 19,
21, 23, 28, 30, 32, and 34-36.
LEGAL STANDARD
“The
service of a 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 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 to the action . . . without having served a valid
objection . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, the
party giving 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling
Defendant to produce for deposition its PMQ on Categories of Examination Nos.
1-5, 10, 12, 14, 19, 21, 23, 28, 30, 32, and 34-36. As a preliminary matter,
the court finds Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for this motion:
Plaintiff needs the information and testimony sought to demonstrate that
Defendant was aware of the subject vehicle’s defects but failed to replace or
repurchase the vehicle. Moreover, the parties have sufficiently met and
conferred. The court further notes Defendant initially responded to the
deposition notices with improper boilerplate objections. (Korea Data Systems
Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.) In its opposition
and separate statement, Defendant also generally objects that the Categories of
Examination require disclosure of trade secret materials. But Defendant has not
demonstrated how this objection applies to each Category of Examination. Accordingly,
the court will only address the objections Defendant applies to each category
at issue.
Category Nos. 1-5
Defendant has agreed to produce its
PMQ for deposition on these categories of examination. The requests are
therefore moot.
Category
No. 10
This
category seeks testimony about Defendant’s efforts to repair the engine defect
in the subject vehicle and vehicles of the same year, make, and model. Defendant objects that information
about vehicles other than the subject vehicle is irrelevant. The
court disagrees, as such information could demonstrate the extent to which
Defendant was on notice of a defect that plagued the subject vehicle.
Accordingly, Defendant’s PMQ shall testify about any internal analysis or
investigation regarding defects alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of
the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle.
Category
No. 12
This category seeks testimony about
repair documents Defendant issued to its dealers and consumers regarding the
engine defect. Defendant asserts its PMQ need not
testify about this category because the information sought is irrelevant
because the category covers vehicles other than the subject vehicle. The court
disagrees, as such information could demonstrate the extent to which Defendant
was on notice of a defect that plagued the subject vehicle. Accordingly,
Defendant’s PMQ shall testify about all recall notices and technical service
bulletins concerning the engine defect in vehicles of the same year, make, and
model as the subject vehicle. Defendant’s PMQ shall also testify about repair
orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle, in addition to Defendant’s
communications with dealers about the subject vehicle.
Category
No. 14
This category seeks testimony about
Defendant’s communications concerning the engine defect in Defendant’s
vehicles. Defendant asserts its PMQ need not testify about this category
because the information sought is irrelevant because the category covers
vehicles other than the subject vehicle. The court
disagrees, as such information could demonstrate the extent to which Defendant
was on notice of a defect that plagued the subject vehicle. Accordingly,
Defendant’s PMQ shall testify about any internal analysis or investigation
regarding defects alleged in plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles for the same
year, make, and model of the subject vehicle. Defendant’s PMQ shall also
testify about Defendant’s communications with dealers, factory representatives,
and call centers concerning the engine defect in the subject vehicle.
Category
No. 19
This category seeks testimony about
Defendant’s efforts to repair the A/C defect in the subject vehicle and
vehicles of the same year, make, and model. Defendant objects that information
about other vehicles is irrelevant. The court disagrees, as such information
could demonstrate the extent to which Defendant was on notice of the defect
that plagued the subject vehicle. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMQ shall testify
about any internal analysis or investigation regarding defects alleged in
Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the
subject vehicle.
Category
No. 21
This
category seeks testimony about repair documents Defendant issued to its dealers
and consumers regarding the A/C defect. Defendant asserts its PMQ need not
testify about this category because the information sought is irrelevant
because the category covers vehicles other than the subject vehicle. The court
disagrees, as such information could demonstrate the extent to which Defendant
was on notice of a defect that plagued the subject vehicle. Accordingly,
Defendant’s PMQ shall testify about all recall notices and technical service
bulletins concerning the A/C defect in vehicles of the same year, make, and
model as the subject vehicle. Defendant’s PMQ shall also testify about repair
orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle, in addition to Defendant’s
communications with dealers about the subject vehicle.
Category
No. 23
This
category seeks testimony about Defendant’s communications about the A/C defect
in Defendant’s vehicles. Defendant asserts its PMQ need not testify about this
category because the information sought is irrelevant because the category
covers vehicles other than the subject vehicle. The court disagrees, as such
information could demonstrate the extent to which Defendant was on notice of a
defect that plagued the subject vehicle. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMQ shall
testify about any internal analysis or investigation regarding defects alleged
in plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles for the same year, make, and model of the
subject vehicle. Defendant’s PMQ shall also testify about Defendant’s
communications with dealers, factory representatives, and call centers
concerning the A/C defect in the subject vehicle.
Category
No. 28
This
category seeks testimony about Defendant’s efforts to repair the brake defect
in the subject vehicle and vehicles of the same year, make, and model.
Defendant objects that this request is overbroad,
unduly burdensome, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence because it concerns other vehicles. The court disagrees, as the
information sought could demonstrate the extent to which Defendant was on
notice of a defect that plagued the subject vehicle. Accordingly, Defendant’s
PMQ shall testify about any internal analysis or investigation regarding defects
alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model
as the subject vehicle.
Category
No. 30
This category seeks testimony about
repair documents Defendant issued to its dealers and consumers regarding the
brake defect. Defendant asserts it does not need to
produce its PMQ because the information sought is overbroad, unduly burdensome,
and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant
bases its objections on the fact that the category covers vehicles other than
the subject vehicle. The court disagrees, as such information could
demonstrate the extent to which Defendant was on notice of a defect that
plagued the subject vehicle. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMQ shall testify about
all recall notices and technical service bulletins concerning the brake defect
in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle.
Defendant’s PMQ shall also testify about repair orders and invoices concerning
the subject vehicle, in addition to Defendant’s communications with dealers
about the subject vehicle.
Category
No. 32
This category seeks testimony about
Defendant’s communications concerning the brake defect in Defendant’s vehicles.
Defendant asserts it does not need to produce its PMQ because the information
sought is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant bases its objections on the fact
that the category covers vehicles other than the subject vehicle. The court
disagrees, as such information could demonstrate the extent to which Defendant
was on notice of a defect that plagued the subject vehicle. Accordingly,
Defendant’s PMQ shall testify about any internal analysis or investigation
regarding defects alleged in plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles for the same
year, make, and model of the subject vehicle. Defendant’s PMQ shall also
testify about Defendant’s communications with dealers, factory representatives,
and call centers concerning the brake defect in the subject vehicle.
Category
No. 34
This
category seeks testimony about Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Defendant has not sufficiently
demonstrated how its general objections apply to this request. Accordingly,
Defendant’s PMQ shall testify about Defendant’s policies and procedures used to
evaluate customer requests for repurchase under the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act, for the period of date of purchase to present.
Category
No. 35
This category seeks testimony about
Defendant’s procedures to ensure compliance with the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act. Defendant has not demonstrated how its general objections apply
to this request. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMQ shall testify about Defendant’s
procedures for compliance with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for the
period of date of purchase to present.
Category
No. 36
This category seeks testimony about
Defendant’s procedure for calculating restitution to consumers under the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Defendant has not demonstrated how its
general objections apply to this request. Accordingly, Defendant’s PMQ shall
testify about the information sought.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court
grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ.
Defendant shall produce its PMQ for deposition within 10 days of this order.
Defendant’s PMQ shall testify about Categories for Examination Nos. 10, 12, 14,
19, 21, 23, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, and 36. Categories for Examination Nos. 1-5 are
moot.
Plaintiff
shall give notice.