Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV24815, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24815    Hearing Date: January 24, 2025    Dept: 32

            Background

            Plaintiffs charbel r. adaimy (Plaintiff) commenced this action against Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC (Kia) on October 11, 2023.  The Complaint asserts causes of action for violations of the Song Beverly statute.  Plaintiff’s claims arise from his purchase of a 2022 Kia Soul (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

A.    MOTION TO COMPEL PMK DEPOSITION.

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

1. Deposition Appearance

Kia 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 25 categories of examination.

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

            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, The Court finds validity to some of Kia’s objections. Most of the deposition topics relate to the Vehicle, Kia’s policies and procedures for reimbursement in response to complaints, and to Recalls or Training Service Bulletins concerning the vehicle. These deposition topics would plainly fall within the broad scope of discovery in this lemon law case.

            In sum, Kia must produce a PMK for the deposition for the following topics:

1.     Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.CA US LLC (“Defendant”) shall produce the “Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual” published by Defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, from date of purchase to present. 

2.     Defendant shall produce any and all Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins concerning the subject vehicle.  Defendant is not required to do a search of emails.

3.     Defendant shall produce any customer complaints relating to transmission defects alleged in plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. Any search shall be limited to source codes used on Plaintiff’s vehicle.

4.     Defendant shall produce all documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from date of purchase to present.

5.     Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

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

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

8.     All other requests for further production are DENIED.

9.     PMK deposition shall take place within 45 days of this order.     

10.  Production shall be subject to a protective order.

11.  The Court does not award sanctions as it finds both sides acted with substantial justification.

B.    MOTION to compel inspection of subject vehicle

`Plaintiff is in agreement to allow inspection of the vehicle.  As such, the motion is granted.

Inspection of the vehicle shall take place within 45 days of this order.

The Court does not award sanctions as it finds both sides acted with substantial justification.