Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV36204, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jose Tapia’s motion to compel Defendant General Motors LLC’s compliance with this Court’s December 4, 2023, Ruling is granted. Defendant General Motors LLC is ordered to comply within 20 days of this ruling, producing its Person Most Qualified for deposition on all noticed matters for examination, and to pay the $2,310.00 in sanctions it was ordered to pay.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted against Defendant and its counsel of record, Erskine Law Group, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,860.00, within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff Jose Tapia (“Tapia”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”) (“Defendant”) to comply with this Court’s December 4, 2023, Discovery Order (“12/4/23 Ruling”). (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2031.320.)

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Erskine Law Group, in the amount of $1,860.00 for Defendant’s failure to comply with this Court’s 12/4/23 Ruling and for cost incurred in filing the instant motion. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2031.310, 2023.030, 2023.010.)

On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed his operative complaint against GM alleging three causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act- Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act- Breach of Implied Warranty; and (3) Negligent Repair. (See Complaint.)

On September 19, 2023, when Plaintiff served Defendant with a Notice of Deposition of Defendant’s Person(s) Most Qualified (“PMQ”) and Custodian(s) of Records for October 17, 2023. Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition identified with reasonable particularity 4 matters for examination and 6 requests for document production. Plaintiffs’ matters for examination included matters related to GM’s pre-litigation analysis as to whether the Subject Vehicle should be repurchased, all repairs and service performed on the Subject Vehicle. GM’s policies and procedures for determining whether a vehicle qualifies for a repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly Act, and GM’s training for evaluating a pre-litigation repurchase request under the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff requested in the email to which the deposition notice was attached that Defendant’s counsel provide alternative dates by August 4, 2023, in the event Defendant or its counsel were unavailable on the noticed date. (Decl. of Thomas ¶2.)

On October 4, 2023, Defendant served Objections to Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition and stated that no witness would be produced. The parties exchanged meet and confer emails and letters, but still Defendant refused to produce a witness. The deposition took place as scheduled on October 17, 2023, but Defendant did not appear. (Decl. of Thomas ¶3.)

On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant’s PMQ. Plaintiff’s Motion was heard on December 4, 2023, and this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion, ordering Defendant to produce its PMQ for deposition on all noticed matters for examination by January 15, 2024, and also ordered Defendant to pay sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $2,310.00 by January 15, 2024. (12/4/23 Minute Order.)

Defendant has not offered dates for this deposition to go forward, and no deposition has taken place. Defendant has also not paid the sanctions it was ordered to pay. (Decl. of Thomas ¶5).

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on January 17, 2024. On February 7, 2024, Defendant filed its opposition. Plaintiff filed his reply on February 16, 2024.

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (C.C.P. §2031.320(a).)

This Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce its PMQ for deposition and Defendant has disobeyed this Court’s order. Section

2023.030 of the Discovery Act specifically states that a misuse of the discovery process occurs when a party disobeys “a court order to provide discovery.” (C.C.P. §2023.030(g); see also Morrie London v. Dri-Honing Corporation et al. (2004), 117 Cal.App.4th 999, 1006.) Moreover, the Court has the inherent power to enforce and compel obedience with its orders. (C.C.P. §128(a)(4); Fairfield v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal. App.2d 113.) Accordingly, “misuse of the discovery process may result in the imposition of a variety of sanctions…including payment costs, sanctions barring the introduction of certain evidence, sanctions deeming that certain issues are determined against the offending party, and sanctions terminating an action.” (Karlson v. Ford Motor

Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance is granted. Defendant is ordered to produce its PMQ within 20 days of this ruling.

“Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (C.C.P. §2031.320(b).)

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Erskine Law Group, jointly and severally, is granted. Plaintiff’s counsel declares his hourly rate is $450/hour, and he spent approximately four hours drafting the instant motion, reviewing the opposition, and appearing for the hearing, and his office incurred $60.00 in costs for filing the instant motion. (Decl. of Thomas ¶¶8-9.) The Court calculates sanctions as follows:

Defendant and its counsel of record, Erskine Law group, is ordered to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $1,860.00, jointly and severally, within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to comply with this Court’s December 4, 2023, Ruling is granted. Defendant is ordered to comply within 20 days of this ruling.

Defendant and its counsel of record, Erskine Law Group, is ordered, jointly and severally, to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $1,860.00, within 20 days.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court