Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV11411, Date: 2024-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11411    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: 74

Raul Naranjo, et al. v. General Motors, LLC

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Monetary, Issue, or Evidentiary Sanctions

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a defective 2020 Chevrolet Silverado (Subject Vehicle).

            On May 22, 2023, Plaintiffs Raul Naranjo and Raul Naranjo Jr. (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant).

            On November 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable (PMK).

            On January 8, 2024, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and ordered Defendant to produce its PMK by February 8, 2024.

            However, the deposition did not take place by February 8.

            On February 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion for sanctions.  

DISCUSSION 

            Plaintiffs seek monetary, evidentiary, or issue sanctions against Defendant. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, the court may impose sanctions against a party that has misused the discovery process. One such misuse is disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (g).) On January 8, 2024, the court ordered Defendant to produce its PMK for deposition by February 8, 2024. But Defendant did not do so. The court notes Defendant offered to produce its PMK on February 8, but Plaintiffs were unavailable on that date. (Quezada Decl., ¶ 4.) Be that as it may, Defendant failed to make a good faith effort to ensure the deposition took place in time. That is, Defendant did not timely respond to Plaintiffs’ emails on January 12, 19, and 26 about scheduling the deposition before the deadline. (Quezada Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4.) Nor did Defendant provide Plaintiffs with alternate dates before the deadline. Thus, Defendant cannot blame Plaintiffs for its failure to obey the discovery order.

            Given the foregoing, sanctions are appropriate. Because Defendant has tried to arrange alternate dates for the deposition after February 8, the court does not find that issue or evidentiary sanctions are necessary. (Quezada Decl., ¶ 5; Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793 [“The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.”].) Accordingly, the court will award Plaintiffs monetary sanctions in the sum of $3,375.66 ($550 x (2.5 hours (motion) + 3.5 hours (reviewing opposition, drafting reply, and preparing for and attending hearing) + $75.66 (filing fee).) Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable, and she has substantiated her request for attorney fees with a breakdown of work performed. (Quinn Decl., ¶¶ 12-14.)

CONCLUSION 

            The court grants Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions. Defendant shall pay Plaintiffs’ counsel attorney fees in the sum of $3,375.66 within 30 days of this order.

            Plaintiffs shall give notice.