Judge David A. Rosen, Case Number: 22GDCV00166, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 22GDCV00166, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00166 Hearing Date: May 19, 2023 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 05/19/2023 – 11:00am
Case No: 22GDCV00166
Trial Date: 06/26/2023
Case Name: AMELIA LOPEZ, individual; v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1-50 inclusive

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Amelia Lopez

Responding Party: Defendant, General Motors LLC

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Oliva Declaration; Proposed Order

Opposing Papers: Opposition; Major Declaration

Reply Papers: Reply

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Correct Address (CCP §1013, §1013a, §1013b): Ok

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff, Amelia Lopez, moves for an order compelling Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant or GM) to comply with the Court’s February 10, 2023 Discovery Order (Discovery Order) compelling Defendant to produce a Person Most Qualified witness for deposition on enumerated Category Numbers 1-4, 7 and 10. Plaintiff also requests prospective monetary sanctions be imposed against Defendant, in the amount of $500 for each day that Defendant does not make full and complete production of the PMQ witness after the requested ten-day compliance period.

This Motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, on the grounds that Defendant violated the Court’s Order in failing to comply despite ample opportunity to do so. The Motion is based on this Notice, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Vanessa J. Oliva, the pleadings and papers on file, and upon any other matters that may be presented to the Court at the hearing.

BACKGROUND
On 02/10/2023, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified. The tentative ruling of the Court became the final order of the Court except it was amended to allow Defendant no later than March 30, 2023 to produce person(s) most qualified to be deposed.

ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling compliance with the Court’s February 10, 2023 Order. Plaintiff moves for an order because after several attempts to schedule the deposition with Defendant, Defendant never responded. In particular, Plaintiff emailed Defendant’s counsel about scheduling the deposition on February 14, 2023, February 27, 2023, March 9, 2023, and March 22, 2023. Each email that Plaintiff sent, Defendant did not respond to. Plaintiff requests immediate compliance with the Court’s February 10, 2023 order, and Plaintiff requests the Court impose prospective monetary sanctions of $500 per day for each day after the new ten-day compliance period that Defendant does not fully comply with the Court’s order.

Opposition argues that Plaintiff’s counsel did not meet and confer in good faith for scheduling the deposition of GM’s PMQ in light of the fact that GM and Plaintiff were mediating the matter when this motion was filed. Defendant also argues the motion is moot because GM earnestly tried to comply with the Court’s order. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s assertion that GM willfully disobeyed the Court’s order is completely unfounded.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s request for prospective sanctions is excessive and unsupported. Defendant also argues that sanctions for discovery violations must be related to the time and hourly rate for the preparation of the motion and court appearance. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff failed to give proper notice and tailor the request for sanctions appropriately.

LEGAL STANDARD – FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER COMPELLING DEPOSITION

“If that party or party-affiliated deponent then fails to obey an order compelling attendance, testimony, and production, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against that party deponent or against the party with whom the deponent is affiliated. In lieu of, or in addition to, this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against that deponent or against the party with whom that party deponent is affiliated, and in favor of any party who, in person or by attorney, attended in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken pursuant to that order.” (CCP §2024.450(h).)

ANLAYSIS
Plaintiff correctly cited CCP §2025.450 in the notice of its motion; however, Plaintiff inexplicably cited the inapplicable code section 2031.310(i) in the body of its motion on page 3. In Opposition, Defendant also cited the inapplicable code section of 2031.300(d) on page 3 of its Opposition. The Court will apply the proper code section of CCP §2025.450(h).

Here, Defendant failed to obey the Court’s 02/10/2023 order compelling the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ no later than March 30, 2023. Plaintiff emailed Defendant’s counsel several times, and Defendant’s counsel never responded to Plaintiff’s scheduling requests. Defendant’s arguments that Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith in attempting to schedule the deposition is unavailing.

Further, Defendant argued that sanctions for discovery violations must be related to the time and hourly rate for the preparation of the motion and court appearance. Here, the Court finds Defendant’s argument unavailing because Defendant provided no legal authority for this assertion.

Additionally, Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to give proper notice and tailor the request for sanctions appropriately. The Court is not persuaded.

TENTATIVE RULING
Although CCP §2025.450(h) supports a request for issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions on the instant facts, Plaintiff seeks only prospective monetary sanctions. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED for Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s 02/10/2023 order. Defendant is ordered to produce its person(s) most qualified for deposition on category numbers 1-4, 7, and 10 within ten calendar days of this order. Further, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. For every day after the ten-day compliance period that Defendant fails to produce its person(s) most qualified as set forth herein for deposition, Defendant will be ordered to pay sanctions in the reasonable amount of $500 per day. If Defendant complies by producing its PMQ(s) for deposition within ten calendar days of this order, then no monetary sanctions are awarded.