Judge Deirdre Hill, Case 19TRCV00679 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

ALERT

Due to Coronavirus, please consider appearing by phone for Department M cases.

Department M strongly encourages the use of LA CourtConnect* for ALL hearings, without need for prior approval, unless live testimony by a witness is required.

The contact information for LA CourtConnect* is:

https://lacourt.portalscloud.com/VCourt/

*Parties with a fee waiver on file may be eligible to appear at no/reduced cost

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to produce its PMQ by October 31, 2022 as to all the categories in plaintiff’s deposition notice.

On August 7, 2019, plaintiff Maria Gomez filed a complaint against Hyundai Motor America for violations of statutory obligations under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

On September 30, 2020, the court overruled defendant’s demurrer as to the 2^nd, 3^rd, and 5^th causes of action. The motion to strike was granted without leave to amend in part and denied in part.

On January 19, 2021, Judge Nishimoto issued a ruling denying plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses and then issued a nunc pro tunc order continuing the motion to allow counsel to meet and confer regarding the defect definitions and time frame.

On March 9, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part, plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents. The court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the January 19, 2021 order.

On April 12, 2022, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant’s PMQ, defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition, and defendant’s motion to compel vehicle inspection.

CCP §2025.450(a) provides: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, . . , 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(b) provides, “A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

(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.”

CCP §2025.230 states: “If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.”

Plaintiff Maria Gomez requests an order compelling defendant to designate and produce for deposition a person most qualified on all categories identified in plaintiff’s notice of deposition of the PMK for Hyundai Motor America.

Plaintiff contends that on September 23, 2019, plaintiff served defendant with a PMQ deposition notice. Defendant objected and no witness was produced. On May 28, 2021, plaintiff served a PMQ deposition notice. Defendant objected. On July 21, 2021, plaintiff served a PMQ deposition notice. Defendant objected. On November 3, 2021, plaintiff served a PMQ deposition notice. Defendant objected. On July 22, 2022, plaintiff served a PMQ deposition notice. Defendant objected.

On January 7, 2022, plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel requesting available dates. On January 15, 2022, plaintiff’s counsel sent another letter to defense counsel requesting available dates. On January 20, 2022, plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to defense counsel stating that plaintiff had no choice but to file a motion to compel. On January 25, 2022, defense counsel sent an email stating that it was still working on obtaining deposition dates. On March 29, 2022, defense counsel sent an email to plaintiff’s counsel stating that its PMQ was available for deposition on July 11, 2022 and August 8, 2022. On March 30, 2022, plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to defense counsel confirming defendant’s PMQ deposition on August 8, 2022. On July 29, 2022, defense counsel sent an email to plaintiff’s counsel stating defendant was unable to proceed with the PMQ deposition because of an upcoming trial and offered December 2, 2022 as an alternative date. On July 29, 2022, plaintiff’s counsel sent another letter to defense counsel stating that they do not agree to delay the deposition to December and requested a deposition date in September/October 2022. On August 5, 2022, defense counsel sent an email stating that December 2 was the earliest available PMQ deposition date.

In opposition, defendant contends that neither defendant’s PMQ nor lead counsel were available on the date noticed in August, although defense counsel had previously offered and agreed to that date. Defendant argues that the motion is moot because defendant provided plaintiff with an alternative date of December 2, 2022 and that there is no question that the deposition is to go forward.

In reply, plaintiff argues that the motion should be granted because it has sought PMQ testimony since September 23, 2019 and that plaintiff’s counsel has met and conferred regarding this issue since January 7, 2022 and that defendant continues to delay its PMQ’s deposition.

The motion is GRANTED. The court notes that although defendant had proposed and confirmed an available date in August 2022, it cancelled about a week prior. The date proposed in December is three months away, which is unreasonable.