Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV40380, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendant is granted in the amount of $1,860.00, payable within 20 days.

Plaintiffs Francisco Ortiz (“Francisco”) and Cristian Ortiz (“Cristian”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors LLC’s (“GM”) (“Defendant”) Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian of Records (“PMQ”) to appear for deposition and produce documents. (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P §2025.450(a).) Plaintiffs also move for an order awarding monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $1,860.00. (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P §2025.450(g)(1).)

C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(2) requires that a motion to compel a party deponent to appear or produce documents “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(2).) The attempt to resolve informally may be made either by conferring “in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney.” (C.C.P. §2023.010(i), [failure to make such attempt constitutes “misuse of discovery process”].)

Plaintiffs’ counsel declares he noticed the November 29, 2023, deposition of Defendant’s PMQ on November 8, 2023, and requested that Defendant provide alternative dates for the deposition by November 15, 2023, if that date did not work. (Decl. of Thomas ¶¶3-4, Exhs. A, B.) Plaintiffs’ counsel declares on November 22, 2023, Defendant’s counsel served objections to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition stating that no witness would be produced on the noticed date. (Decl. of Thomas ¶5, Exh. C.) Plaintiffs’ counsel declares on November 27, 2023, Plaintiffs sent Defendant a detailed meet and confer letter addressing the deficiencies in Defendant’s objection to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition. (Decl. of Thomas ¶6, Exh. D.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that on November 29, 2023, at 11:30 AM, Plaintiffs logged on to the video link for the deposition and stayed on for 30 minutes, but Defendant’s PMQ did not appear. (Decl. of Thomas ¶8.) Plaintiffs’ counsel declares he then sent Defendant an email offering Defendant an additional three business days to provide dates for the deposition, to which Defendant did not respond. (Decl. of Thomas ¶8, Exh. E.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s meet and confer efforts are sufficient per the requirements to meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney.” (C.C.P. §2023.010(i).)

Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s PMQ to attend and produce documents at deposition, the Court rules as follows.

Plaintiffs noticed the November 29, 2023, deposition of Defendant’s PMQ on November 8, 2023, and requested that Defendant provide alternative dates for the deposition by November 15, 2023, if that date did not work. (Decl. of Thomas ¶¶3-4, Exhs. A, B.) Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition identified four (4) matters for examination and six (6) requests for document production related to Defendant’s pre-litigation analysis as to whether the Subject Vehicle should be repurchased, all repairs and service performed on the Subject Vehicle, Defendant’s policies and procedures for determining whether a vehicle qualifies for a repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly Act, and Defendant’s training for evaluating a prelitigation repurchase request under the Song-Beverly Act. (Decl. of Thomas ¶3, Exh. A.) On November 22, 2023, Defendant’s counsel served objections to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition stating that no witness would be produced on the noticed date. (Decl. of Thomas ¶5, Exh. C.) On November 29, 2023, at 11:30 AM, Plaintiffs logged on to the video link for the deposition and stayed on for 30 minutes, but Defendant’s PMQ did not appear. (Decl. of Thomas ¶8.)

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on December 8, 2023. Defendant filed its opposition on January 18, 2024. Plaintiffs filed their reply on January 24, 2024.

Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ because Plaintiffs properly noticed the deposition, Plaintiffs’ matters for examination were reasonably particularized, and the matters for examination are relevant and material to Plaintiffs’ Song-Beverly Claims. (See Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement.) To the extent Defendant objects to Plaintiffs matters for examination seek the production of trade secret material, Defendant can move for a protective order. (C.C.P. §2025.420.)

The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to C.C.P. §2025.450 and orders Defendant’s PMQ to appear for deposition and produce responsive documents in 20 days. Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to order Defendant to testify on all categories of Plaintiff’s notice and respond to all requests for production.

Plaintiffs’ counsel declares he spent 1.5 hours drafting the instant motion at a rate of $450.00 per hour and anticipates spending an additional 1.5 hours reviewing Defendant’s opposition and drafting a reply, and an additional 1.0 hour preparing for and attending the hearing on this matter. (Decl. of Thomas ¶9.) Plaintiffs’ counsel also declares his office incurred the cost of $60.00 for filing the instant motion. (Decl. of Thomas ¶10.) The Court calculates Plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees incurred on the instant motion as follows:

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ granted. Defendant’s PMQ is ordered to appear for deposition and produce responses to the request for production within 20 days.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendant is granted in the amount of $1,860.00.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court