Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV01493, Date: 2025-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 23CHCV01493    Hearing Date: March 20, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 12/11/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Gerardo Zavala

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court compelling Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. to produce a Person Most Qualified and Custodian of Records to attend deposition and to produce documents as noticed, and imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record in the amount of $2,872.50.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Gerardo Zavala (“Plaintiff” or “Zavala”) filed this Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act lawsuit over alleged defects in his 2022 Honda Accord (the “Subject Vehicle”), which was manufactured by Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant” or “AHM”). Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle new on March 8, 2022, entering into an express written contract with AHM. (Compl. §§ 8-9.)

On May 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant AHM and Does 1 through 10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty; and (2) Fraudulent Inducement - Concealment.

On October 25, 2023, the Department F47 Court sustained AHM’s demurrer with motion to strike, filed on July 5, 2023, granting Plaintiff 30 days leave to amend. (10/25/2023 Minute Order.) No First Amended Complaint was filed within the 30-day time limit, and AHM subsequently filed its Answer to the Complaint on March 14, 2024.

On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Deposition (the “Motion”). Subsequently, AHM filed an Opposition on March 7, 2025, and Plaintiff submitted a Reply on March 13, 2025.

ANALYSIS

To compel the deposition of a party to an action or its officer, director, managing agent, or employee, the deposing party need only serve a notice in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.240. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) Nothing further is needed. If, after service of the deposition notice, the deponent fails to appear “without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410 . . .” the deposing party may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony. (Id., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

A.    Procedural Requirements

1.      Meet and Confer

"Implicit in the requirement that counsel contact the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance is a requirement that counsel listen to the reasons offered and make a good faith attempt to resolve the issue," including by rescheduling.¿(Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Serv. (2001) 86 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1124.)

Here, on September 12, 2024, Plaintiff served AHM with a notice of deposition of AHM’s Person Most Qualified (PMQ) and Custodians of Record for October 25, 2024. (Nandivada Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. “A.”) On October 18, 2024, AHM served its objections to Plaintiff’s notice of deposition, stating that a deponent would not be produced on the noticed date. (Id. ¶ 6.) On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff sought further meet and confer by sending a written letter regarding AHM’s objections. (Id. ¶ 8.) On October 25, 2024, AHM’s counsel appeared at the deposition and confirmed that AHM’s PMQ was not being produced. (Id. ¶ 10.) Subsequently, Plaintiff emailed AHM requesting dates for the deposition. (Ibid.) On December 7, 2024, Plaintiff sent another email to inquire about alternative dates for the deposition. (Id. ¶ 11.)

Based on the record above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made good faith attempts to reschedule and resolve issues raised in the instant Motion and has therefore satisfied the meet and confer requirement.

B.     Motion to Compel Deposition of AHM’s PMQ  

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.280 subdivision (a) provides that service of a deposition notice “is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action [] to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.”

An objection under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410 is one that is written, made “at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled,” and pertains to an “error or irregularity” with the notice itself. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).) The procedure for a deponent who seeks to narrow the scope of a discovery request is to move for a protective order. (Id., § 2025.420, subd. (a).)

Significantly, objections do not stay the taking of the deposition. To do so, the objecting party should move to quash the deposition notice and stay the taking of the deposition. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (c), [“In addition to serving this written objection, a party may also move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. The taking of the deposition is stayed pending the determination of this motion.”])

Here, AHM failed to produce its PMQ and Custodian of Records for the noticed deposition on October 25, 2024. (Nandivada Decl. ¶ 10.) AHM opposed the Motion solely on the ground that its PMQ was unavailable on the noticed day due to limited PMQ witness resources and its heavy caseloads. (Opp’n. at pp. 5-6.) AHM asserts that it offered alternative dates, including June 10, 2025; however, Plaintiff declined the proposed date. (Reynolds Decl. ¶¶ 13-14.)

 The Court acknowledges AHM’s argument regarding its limited resource and its effort to provide an alternative deposition date. However, the statute does not require the moving party to accept an alternative date – especially one that is over seven months later in the future.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to the deposition of AHM’s PMQ upon the service of the notice of deposition.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

C.    Monetary Sanctions

If a motion to compel a party deponent to appear for a deposition is granted, the court must impose a monetary sanction "in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent . . . 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." (Code Civ Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Given that the Court has granted the Motion, it finds that the mandatory sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (g), are applicable. However, because AHM provided a reasonable explanation for the nonappearance of its deponent and proposed an alternative deposition date during the previous meet and confer process, the Court finds that AHM has acted with substantial justification and accordingly reduces the monetary sanction.

Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court determines that a reasonable amount of sanction is $750.00, based on a reasonable hourly rate of $375.00 for two hours reasonably spent.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART the request for monetary sanctions, awarding $750.00 in favor of Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Gerardo Zavala’s Motion to Compel Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Person Most Qualified and Custodian of Records to Appear for Deposition and Produce Documents, as requested in Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Deposition dated September 12, 2024, is GRANTED.

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is ordered to produce its Person Most Qualified and Custodian of Records to attend and testify regarding each matter of examination listed in Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition dated September 12, 2024, within 30 days of this order.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff Gerardo Zavala’s request for monetary sanctions.

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and its attorney of record, are ordered to jointly and severally pay $750.00 in sanctions to Plaintiff Gerardo Zavala’s counsel.

Moving party to give notice.