Judge Deirdre Hill, Case 22TRCV00772 2023-03-30 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

Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable, with Production of Documents

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s person(s) most knowledgeable is ordered to appear for deposition within 20 days to respond to the categories listed in plaintiffs’ deposition notice and to produce responsive documents to the document requests described in the deposition notice.

On September 2, 2022, plaintiffs Kenneth Petrulis and Dale Petrulis filed a complaint against Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act with respect to a 2019 Jaguar I-Pace.

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.”

Plaintiffs request an order compelling defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC to produce its person(s) most knowledgeable for deposition and to produce documents.

Plaintiffs contend that the deposition notice was served on defendant on October 24, 2022 and set for November 7, 2022. On November 2, 2022, defendant served objections to the notice, including as to the request for documents and that the witness(es) and counsel were unavailable on the date and time noticed. On November 29, 2022, defense counsel sent correspondence requesting an extension to respond to plaintiffs’ written discovery. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded requesting an update as to defendant’s availability to proceed with the deposition. Defendant responded offering one available date on April 12, 2023 for the deposition of defendant’s PMK. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded requesting that earlier dates be provided within 60 days from December 6, 2022; however, defense counsel did not respond. Plaintiffs also assert that on December 8, 2022, plaintiff’s counsel’s office sent correspondence to defense counsel to meet and confer regarding defendant’s objections and requested that defendant withdraw the objections. As of the date of the motion, defendant has not proceeded with producing a witness to discuss the categories contained within plaintiffs’ deposition notice and the parties have not reached agreement with regard to categories of examination, document requested, or a date for the deposition to go forward.

Plaintiffs also argue that they have good cause as to the production of documents, citing to relevant statutory authority. Plaintiffs assert that the deposition notice contains thirteen categories of documents and nine requests for documents related to the categories. Plaintiffs explain that Categories 1, 9, 10-13 and Requests 1, 2, 7-9 relate to the subject vehicle’s warranties and corresponding repair history. Categories 2-6 and 13 and Requests 3, 4, and 9 relate to Technical Service Bulletins, Recalls and Campaigns regarding the subject vehicle. Categories 7-8 and Requests 5-6 are with respect to the specific investigation defendant conducted regarding the determination whether to repurchase plaintiffs’ vehicle and the policies and procedures in place at the time defendant conducted this investigation.

In opposition, defendant contends that it has not refused to produce a PMK deponent in response to any of plaintiffs’ deposition categories and has not refused to produce any documents, and that on December 6, 2022 it had offered the first available date of April 12, 2023, which was five months away. Defendant asserts that its witness Brandon Sangster, a Customer Satisfaction Senior Technical Specialist, has limited availability because of a “backlog of cases.” Defendant asserts that Sangster is no longer available for deposition on April 12, 2023 and that his next available date for deposition is August 10, 2023. Defendant also contends that it has offered to repurchase the subject vehicle and concedes liability and thus “most of the categories and requests are no longer relevant.”

In reply, plaintiffs note that defendant has provided no support for any of its objections to the deposition notice categories or requests for documents and argue why the objections lack merit. Plaintiffs assert also that an offer to produce a deponent is meaningless unless it agrees to produce all of the requested documents and respond to the noticed categories. Plaintiffs also argue that defendant’s repurchase offer does not comply with the Song-Beverly Act and therefore there is no admission of liability.

The court finds that plaintiffs properly noticed defendant’s PMK’s deposition and that defendant’s objections lack merit. Defendant unreasonably proposed one deposition date five months later, which is unavailable to date, and offers another date in August 2023, which is more than four months away. Defendant did not support any of its objections and did not file a response to plaintiff’s separate statement. Further, plaintiffs have shown good cause as to the production of documents.