Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Aboabdo v. Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

The “Motion to Compel Designation of Individuals to Appear, Appearance at Deposition, and Production of Documents” filed by Plaintiff Amal Aboabdo (“Plaintiff”) is GRANTED IN PART.

The Motion seeks an order compelling Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC (“Jaguar”) to designate and produce persons most qualified (“PMQs”) to testify as to the matters set forth in the 3/1/22 deposition notice (the “Notice) attached as Ex. 2 to the Le Decl. , ¶¶ 3, 4, Exs. 1, 2, and to produce the documents requested therein.

As to the designated categories for testimony, the Notice identified 22 categories. Jaguar responded only with objections as to every category, and then failed to appear and failed to produce documents. (Le Decl. ¶¶ 5 and 6, Ex. 3.) Jaguar asserts that this was justified, because it had filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration (the “MTCA”) before serving the Objections. But it had not at that time obtained a stay. In addition, although the MTCA was then denied, it still did not respond to requests to confer as to the Notice and the requested depositions. Instead it waited until the Opposition on this Motion was filed to identify any categories as to which it would be willing to produce a PMQ, and proposed dates in December.  (Goldsmith Decl. ¶ 12.)  Jaguar’s belated offer to produce PMQs on a subset of the categories at issue, without having meaningfully conferred on the dispute for the months prior, does not make this motion moot, and does not reflect a good faith effort to meet and confer to address the dispute.

In any event, the Court finds that this Motion should be granted in part, to compel Jaguar to produce PMQs as follows:

(a)  For Categories 1 – 6, and 18-20, the Motion is GRANTED with the clarification that “Problems” is to be deemed to refer to the issues identified in the repair records for the vehicle, other than routine scheduled service work such as oil changes;

(b) For Categories 7 -9, 21, and 22, the Motion is GRANTED;

(c)  For Category 10, as Plaintiff has identified reasonable grounds for the category, to which Jaguar failed to meaningfully respond, the Motion is GRANTED;

(d) For Categories 11 – 16, the Motion is DENIED. Although fact- specific categories may properly be identified, including persons with knowledge and documents related thereto (see Maldonado v Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1392), these categories lack adequate specificity as to what facts the witness would need to be prepared to address;

(e)  For Category 17, the Motion is DENIED, as what is identified lacks adequate specificity as to what facts the witness would need to be prepared to address, and appears instead to seek work product.

Counsel are to confer to identify available dates for these depositions within the next 30 days, and should be prepared to discuss appropriate dates at the time of the hearing.

With regard to the document request categories, Jaguar claims in its Opposition that it already provided verified substantive responses to identical document requests in the Requests for Production (“RFPs”) which were at issue when the Court ruled on 10/10/22, (except as to Nos. 12, 13, and 32-33, as to which the parties were directed to further confer). The Reply does not dispute that this is so. It thus appears that this Motion, as to the document requests in the Notice, is moot. However, this ruling is without prejudice to any future motion to seek additional examination time for the PMQs if Plaintiff subsequently contends that Jaguar did not comply with its discovery obligations on those RFPs.

In light of Jaguar’s failure to appear for the deposition without having served valid objections, and its continued failure to meaningfully meet and confer concerning the Notice, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $2,588 is GRANTED against Jaguar and Bowman and Brooke LLP, jointly and severally. Such sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff, through Plaintiff’s counsel of record, within 30 days after service of notice of this ruling.

Counsel for Plaintiff is to give notice.