Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV20077, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20077    Hearing Date: April 28, 2023    Dept: 32

Background

            Plaintiff luzhou wang (Plaintiff) commenced this action against Defendant FCA US LLC (FCA) on May 27, 2021.  The Complaint asserts causes of action for violations of the Song Beverly statute.  Plaintiff’s claims arise from his purchase of a 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee (Vehicle).

Legal Standard

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document … described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document … described in the deposition notice.”  (CCP § 2025.450(a).)  The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document described in the deposition notice.  (CCP § 2025.450(b)(1).)  The motion shall also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).)

            If the motion is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  (CCP § 2025.450(g)(1).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant FCA to produce a PMK for deposition and produce documents specified in Plaintiff’s deposition notice.

1. Deposition Appearance

FCA must appear for deposition unless it has served “a valid objection under Section 2025.410.”  (CCP § 2025.450(a).)  Section 2025.410 concerns errors and irregularities with the deposition notice.  Plaintiff’s deposition notice contains 20 categories of examination.

FCA interposed numerous boilerplate objections including relevancy, burden, and attorney-client privilege.  FCA, however, agreed to produce a PMK for some categories.

            The Court finds minimal validity to FCA’s objections.  The scope of a deposition, like the scope of discovery in general, may relate to “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (CCP § 2017.010.)  “For discovery purposes, information should be regarded as ‘relevant to the subject matter’ if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.”  (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)  “Doubts as to whether particular matters will aid in a party’s preparation for trial should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.”  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 551.)

            In this case, most of the deposition topics relate to the Vehicle, FCA’s policies and procedures for reimbursement in response to complaints, and recalls or Training Service Bulletins concerning the vehicle. These deposition topics plainly fall within the broad scope of discovery in this lemon law case.

            In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff’s requests to be overly broad and unduly burdensome, but FCA must produce a PMK for the deposition concerning the following topics:

1.      Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

2.      Communications with dealer, factory representative and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle.

3.      Warranty claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the subject vehicle.

4.      Any Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the date the subject vehicle was purchased to the present.

5.      Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins regarding defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle.  FCA is not required to do a search of emails.

6.      Documents that evidence any policy and/or procedure used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date of purchase to the present.

2. Document Production

            The Court finds Plaintiff’s document requests to be overly broad and unduly burdensome.  As such, the Court issues the following discovery order:        

1.      Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

2.      Communications with dealer, factory representative and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle.

3.      Warranty claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the subject vehicle.

4.      Any Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the date the subject vehicle was purchased to the present.

5.      Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins regarding defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle.  FCA is not required to do a search of emails.

6.      Documents that evidence any policy and/or procedure used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date of purchase to the present.

//

//

Conclusion

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part.  FCA must produce a PMK for deposition and answer questions regarding the deposition topics specified in the deposition notice.  FCA must also produce the documents specified in this ruling at the deposition.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.  Court finds that each party acted with substantial justification.

IT IS SO ORDERED.