Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2021-00043529-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 17, 2023

08/18/2023  01:30:00 PM  N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2021-00043529-CU-BC-NC RODRIGUEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 06/30/2023

Plaintiffs Jorge Rodriguez and Ricardo Garcia (collectively, 'Plaintiffs')'s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors, LLC ('Defendant')'s person most qualified ('PMQ') is denied without prejudice.

The motion is procedurally deficient. California Rules of Court ('CRC'), Rule 3.1345(a) provides that 'any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: . . . (4) To compel answers at a deposition; (5) To compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition.' Cal. R. Ct. 3.1345(a)(4), (5). In this instance, the motion is deficient because Plaintiffs failed to include a separate statement providing all the information necessary to understand the discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. See Cal. R. Ct. 3.1345(a), (c). The foregoing constitutes grounds to deny the motion.

The court has discretion to overlook the foregoing procedural deficiency and proceed to the merits. See, e.g., Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 871, 893. The court declines to do so in this instance, however, because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they engaged in sufficient meet and confer efforts before filing the motion. Before bringing a motion to compel attendance at a deposition, a party must make a reasonable and good faith effort to resolve each issue presented by the motion. See Cal. Code Civ. P. §§ 2016.040, 2025.450(b)(2). Whether this was accomplished depends upon the case's circumstances. See Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 424, 431. '[T]he parties must present to each other the merits of their respective positions with the same candor, specificity, and support during informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery motions . . . A reasonable and good-faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering . . . Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.' Townsend v. Sup.

Ct. (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1431, 1435, 1439; Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1294. In this case, the evidence shows that on May 24, 2022, Plaintiffs electronically served Defendant with Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition (the 'First Deposition Notice') noticing the deposition of Defendant's PMQ for June 20, 2022. See Zhang Decl., Ex. 1. On June 13, 2022, Defendant electronically served its objections to the First Deposition Notice. See Pappas Decl., Ex. A. Defendant's PMQ did not appear for his or her deposition on June 20, 2022. On May 8, 2023, Plaintiffs electronically served Defendant with Plaintiffs' First Amended Notice of Deposition (the 'Amended Deposition Notice') noticing the deposition of Defendant's PMQ for May 23, 2023. See Zhang Decl., Ex. 2. On May 16, 2023, Defendant electronically served its objections to the Amended Deposition Notice. Ibid., Ex. 3. On May 17, 2023, Plaintiffs' counsel e-mailed Defendant's counsel acknowledging receipt of Defendant's objections to the Amended Deposition Notice and asking that Defendant provide dates of availability for its PMQ's Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3000800 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  RODRIGUEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED]  37-2021-00043529-CU-BC-NC deposition to go forward. Ibid., Ex. 4. Plaintiffs' counsel sent Defendant's counsel follow-up e-mails on May 25 and June 2, 2023. Ibid. On June 16, 2023, Defendant's counsel responded with available dates in July 2023 and suggested that the sides agree to a 'group offering for all of our outstanding PMK orders . . . .' Ibid., Ex. 6. Plaintiffs filed and served the present motion on June 30, 2023. The foregoing does not constitute a sufficient meet and confer process. More specifically, and as outlined above, Plaintiffs' counsel reached out to Defendant's counsel multiple times after receiving Defendant's objections to the Amended Deposition Notice. Each time, however, Plaintiffs' counsel only inquired as to when Defendant's PMQ would be available to sit for his or her deposition. Plaintiffs' counsel made no effort to informally resolve each issue identified in the moving papers. More specifically, Defendant objected to more than just the deposition date – indeed, Defendant raised voluminous objections to each Category and Request for Production. Plaintiffs' counsel's meet and confer efforts did not include any discussion of Defendant's individual objections.

In light of the foregoing, the court denies the motion without prejudice.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, August 18, 2023. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of August 18, 2023. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3000800