Judge David A. Rosen, Case 22GDCV00625 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300):Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address: Ok

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff, Ricardo Delgadillo, moves this Court for the following:

1. An Order compelling the deposition of Defendant General Motors, LLC's Person or Persons Most Qualified, with production of documents, within thirty (30) days.

2. An Order imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant General Motors, LLC in the amount of $2,952.22, or in any other amount the Court deems just.

This motion is made pursuant to CCP §2025.230, 2025.450 and other applicable statutes.

BACKGROUND
The instant Complaint was filed on 09/26/2022, and the caption of the Complaint is titled, “COMPLAINT FOR RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES [VIOLATION OF THE SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT]. The Plaintiff alleges that on or about December 3, 2020, he leased a 2021 Chevrolet Blazer and the subject vehicle suffered nonconformities to warranty.

C.C.P. §2025.450(a) provides, as follows: “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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing 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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(2) The motion 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.

ANALYSIS
On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff served a notice of deposition for GM’s PMQ. This included an Exhibit A which listed the matters on which the deponent was to be examined and an Exhibit B which included 11 topics of items to be produced. GM served responses and objected to the matters to be examined on and the topics of items to be produced. Plaintiff then met and conferred with Defendant.

Plaintiff then served a first amended notice of deposition for GM’s PMQ. Defendant again objected to the matters to be examined on and the topics of items to be produced. Plaintiff sent another meet and confer and asked for mutually agreeable dates for the deposition, but Defendant never responded to Plaintiff.

The Court construes Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s attempts to meet and confer and schedule a mutually agreeable date and time for a deposition as tantamount to not showing up at the deposition.

In Opposition, Defendant argues that this motion is premature, and that Plaintiff did not meet and confer, but the Court does not find this argument availing.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition and production of documents is granted in part and denied in part as stated herein.

The instant first amended deposition notice contained 6 matters on which the deponent is to be examined and 10 categories of items to be produced.

The Court rules as follows as to the objections asserted by Defendant to the six matters on which the deponent is to be examined:

Matter 1, 2, 3,5, and 6 – Objections overruled without prejudice to objections which may be raised appropriately at the deposition(s) to questions of the witness(es). The defense is to produce a person most qualified relating to matters 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.

Matter 4 – Objections sustained, the matter as stated is overbroad and uncertain.

The Court rules as follows as to the objections asserted by Defendant as to the ten topics of items to be produced:

Request 4 – Objections overruled because the subject vehicle is the Plaintiff’s vehicle and objections overruled as to “Customer Relations file.”

Defendant is ordered to provide full and complete, code compliant responses to the applicable requests for production, as well as the production of responsive documents, all under oath, within 30 days, and the Defendant is to identify the person or persons most qualified and appear for their deposition(s) in this case within 45 days.

If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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).

Plaintiff requested sanctions but because of the mixed ruling of both overruling and sustaining objections, the Court finds it unjust to award sanctions. Sanctions are DENIED.