Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case 21STCV12151 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV12151, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV12151 Hearing Date: May 11, 2023 Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE

Date: 5/11/23 (8:30 AM)

Case: La-Keeya Monique Loman v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (21STCV12151)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs La-Keeya Monique Loman and Robert Earl Loman Jr.’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable is DENIED.

Plaintiffs La-Keeya Monique Loman and Robert Earl Loman Jr. move for an order compelling defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. to produce a Person Most Knowledgeable for further deposition with respect to Categories 7-15 listed in the deposition notice. Plaintiffs also move for an order compelling an initial deposition of defendant’s PMK with respect to Categories 19 and 20 listed in the deposition notice.

Categories 7-15 and 19-20 are as follows:

MATTER NO. 7:

Questions regarding the nature, extent, and substance of correspondence between YOU, and other persons or entities regarding the ELECTRICAL DEFECT(S).

MATTER NO. 8:

Questions regarding the nature of the ELECTRIC DEFECT(S) in HONDA VEHICLES, including the cause of the ELECTRIC DEFECT(S), all available fixes that have been made available to your authorized dealers to date, and the subsequent results of such fixes.

MATTER NO. 9:

Questions regarding YOUR ongoing efforts to understand and repair or remedy the ELECTRICAL DEFECT(S), including all internal investigations, tests, assessments, reports, modifications, and other efforts undertaken by YOU in response to the ELECTRICAL DEFECT(S) in HONDA VEHICLES.

MATTER NO. 10:

Questions regarding the nature, extent, and substance of correspondence between YOU, and other persons or entities regarding the ELECTRICAL DEFECT(S).

MATTER NO.11:

Questions regarding the nature of the ELECTRICAL DEFECT(S) in HONDA VEHICLES, including the cause of the ELECTRICAL DEFECT(S), all available fixes that have been made available to your authorized dealers to date, and the subsequent results of such fixes.

MATTER NO. 12:

MATTER NO. 13:

Questions regarding all available repairs for the ELECTRICAL DEFECT(S) and approximate dates on which those repairs were made available to your dealers.

MATTER NO. 14:

Questions regarding any communications concerning the ELECTRICAL DEFECT(S) in HONDA VEHICLES, including the cause of the ELECTRICAL DEFECT(S), all available remedies, and discussions concerning the ELECTRICAL DEFECT(S), all modifications to the electrical system, or its component parts, of HONDA VEHICLES in response to the ELECTRICAL DEFECT(S), and the efficacy of those modifications.

MATTER NO. 15:

Questions regarding any available fix for the ELECTRICAL DEFECT(S)

MATTER NO. 19:

Questions relating to YOUR advertising of HONDA VEHICLES.

MATTER NO. 20:

Questions relating to YOUR policies/guides/instructions provided to YOUR dealerships in connection with YOUR dealerships’ advertising of HONDA VEHICLES.

With respect to Categories 19 and 20, these categories are no longer relevant because the sixth cause of action, wherein plaintiffs allege that defendant concealed defects in the subject vehicle from its advertising, was dismissed on March 29, 2023 at plaintiff’s request. (See FAC ¶ 91.) In failing to directly address Categories 19 and 20 in the reply, plaintiffs appear to concede that defendant’s advertising is irrelevant.

With respect to Categories 7-15, plaintiffs contend that Michael Mannisto, the Person Most Knowledge whom defendant designated for these categories, could not adequately testify because he purportedly could not explain technical details evoked by Categories 7-15. Plaintiff, however, does not set forth any deposition testimony in the separate statement which indicates that the PMK inadequately answered any questions, as required by Rules of Court 3.1345(a)(4), (c)(1) and (c)(2). The Court has the discretion to deny a discovery motion based on violations of Rules of Court. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892.) The Court exercises such discretion here. Because of plaintiffs’ failure to set forth specific testimony in the separate statement, the Court cannot determine whether the PMK’s deposition testimony was inadequate. In this vein, plaintiffs’ submission of the entire 217-page deposition transcript with the Reply brief falls woefully short of demonstrating any basis for the requested further deposition.

In addition, the Court notes that, to the extent that defendant maintains that it employs a senior technical specialist that can testify regarding technical matters, plaintiff can depose this specialist during expert discovery to obtain the information plaintiffs claim (but did not demonstrate) they are entitled to seek by way of a further PMK deposition.

The motion is DENIED.

Pursuant to CCP § 2025.480(j), the Court shall impose monetary sanctions against a party or attorney who unsuccessfully makes a motion to compel answers, unless the Court finds that party acted with substantial justification or that circumstances make imposition of the sanction unjust. As described above, plaintiffs’ utter failure to demonstrate a basis for the requested further deposition prevents this Court from finding plaintiffs acted with any justification, let alone substantial, in bringing the instant motion. Under such circumstances, the Court does not find the imposition of sanctions unjust. Accordingly, the Court imposes monetary sanctions against plaintiffs’ and their counsel of record in the reasonably requested amount of $2,232. (See Anim-Appiah Decl. ¶ 10.) Sanctions shall be paid to defendant’s counsel of record within thirty (30) days hereof.