Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV44429, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44429    Hearing Date: January 26, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Date:               1/26/23 (8:30 AM)

Case:               Gabriel Garcia v. General Motors LLC (21STCV44429)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Gabriel Garcia’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant General Motors LLC’s Person Most Qualified is GRANTED. 

As a preliminary matter, defendant General Motors LLC contends that plaintiff Gabriel Garcia failed to meet and confer concerning defendant’s objections to the deposition before filing this motion. (Kreymer Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. C.) While plaintiff’s meet and confer communications do not address the objections (Kreymer Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7 & Ex. B), CCP § 2025.450(b)(2) allows the moving party to file a meet and confer declaration or a declaration stating that the moving party contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

Here, defendant’s Person Most Qualified (“PMQ”) failed to attend the deposition on the noticed date of October 3, 2022. (Kreymer Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7 & Ex. D.) Thereafter, on October 3, 5, 7, 17, and 19, 2022, plaintiff thereafter contacted defendant to inquire about the nonappearance and obtain dates when defendant’s PMK would be available for deposition. (Kreymer Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. B.) Plaintiff thus complied with CCP § 2025.450(b)(2). The Court rules on the merits of the motion.

The PMQ topics and documents sought by plaintiff are relevant and probative of plaintiff’s claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, including defendant’s knowledge of alleged vehicle defects and defendant’s handling of complaints and repurchases, even if the topics pertain to vehicles other than plaintiff’s vehicle. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143-44, 154-55 [evidence pertaining to defects in same model transmission in vehicles other than subject vehicle is relevant to Song-Beverly claim]; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973-74, 993 [evidence pertaining to similar problem in other vehicles other than subject vehicle are highly relevant].) Any willfulness in violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act would entitle plaintiff to a civil penalty not exceeding two times the amount of actual damages. (Compl. ¶ 25 [allegation that defendant’s failure to comply with Song-Beverly was willful]; Civ. Code § 1794(c); CACI 3244.)

With respect to policies and procedures, plaintiff is entitled to inquire whether warranty, repair, and diagnostic procedures are designed to encourage refusals of repair or repurchase requests. (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101, 1104-05 [evidence of willfulness in refusing to repair or repurchase the evidence existed because “there was evidence that Isuzu adopted internal policies that erected hidden obstacles to the ability of an unwary consumer to obtain redress under the Act”].)

With respect to defendant’s objections based on trade secret, “the party claiming the [trade secret] privilege has the burden of establishing its existence.” (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1393.) Defendant offers the declaration of its Senior Manager/Senior Technical Consultant, Huizhen Lu, who avers that defendant derives a competitive advantage from its “Policies and Procedures related to warranty repair work and reimbursement to the repair facility” from defendant’s streamlining of operations and decisions. (Major Decl. ¶ 12 & Ex. C at ¶¶ 38.) Lu’s generalized declaration is lacking in meaningful detail concerning how a competitor could benefit from knowing defendant’s processes concerning warranty claims. (Code Civ. Proc. § 3426.1(d) [“trade secret” is “information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (1) [d]erives independent economic value… from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) [i]s the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”].) In any event, even if the deposition or document requests sought trade secrets, the parties could agree to enter into a protective order.

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant General Motors LLC is ordered to produce its Person Most Qualified for Category Nos. 1-26 on _______________ at __________ via remote video deposition and produce documents responsive to Request Nos. 1-17.

For opposing this motion without substantial justification, the Court imposes a monetary sanction against defendant General Motors LLC in the reasonable and requested amount of $1,765. Monetary sanctions are not imposed on defendant’s counsel because CCP § 2025.450(g)(1) provides for monetary sanctions to be imposed only against a party deponent or a party with whom the deponent is affiliated. Monetary sanctions shall be paid to counsel for plaintiff Gabriel Garcia within thirty (30) days hereof.