Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Patel v. Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc.", Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING: 

Motion to Compel Deposition

Plaintiff Akshay Patel moves to compel the deposition of the Person Most Qualified of Defendant Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc. (“AMLNA”), to Categories for Examination Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 18, and 19, and to compel further production of documents responsive to RFP No. 3. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

Categories of Examination at Deposition

On 01/12/2023, Defendant AMLNA produced witness Simon Andrew for all categories of examination. Plaintiff contends that Mr. Andrew was not sufficiently qualified to testify on Category Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 18, and 19.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.450(a) provides that if a party witness fails to appear or produce documents, without having served a valid objection, the noticing party 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.

While this motion was pending, Defendant agreed to produce a PMQ for Category Nos. 2, 5, 7, and 19. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED as to a PMQ for Category Nos. 2, 5, 7, and 19.

Category Nos. 1 and 10 ask for testimony relating to the Vehicle’s warranty and service history. Plaintiff contends Mr. Andrew was not qualified to testify on this topic because he was unable to explain why the Vehicle’s warranty began prior to Plaintiff’s lease or whether the vehicle was sold as a certified pre-owned vehicle, which are essential in the matter. Defendant submits evidence showing that Plaintiff has obtained this information through the deposition of other witnesses. (See Haroutunian Decl. ¶ 5.) On reply, Plaintiff does not respond to that evidence or identify additional testimony within the scope of Category Nos. 1 and 10 that remains unanswered. Therefore, the motion is DENIED as to a PMQ for Category Nos. 1 and 10.

Category Nos. 16, 17, and 18 relate to Defendant AMLNA’s policies and procedures to ensure Defendant is in compliance with Song-Beverly (No. 16), procedures to implement Defendant’s compliance with the Act (No. 17), and how Defendant calculates restitution offered to consumers pursuant to the Act (No. 18).

Plaintiff fails to show Mr. Andrew was not sufficiently qualified to testify as the PMQ on these categories. The testimony identified by Plaintiff in the Separate Statement establishes only that Mr. Andrew was instructed not to answer—not that he was unqualified to testify on these matters.

To the extent Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to the unanswered questions, the Separate Statement is not configured for the court’s consideration of each question and answer at issue. (See Sep. St. 28:1-46:21.) A motion to compel answers at deposition requires a separate statement that sets forth the text of each question, the text of each answer, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further answers to each matter in dispute. (Cal. Rules Ct., Rule 3.1345(a)(4).)

Here, Plaintiff identifies a portion of the deposition transcript including multiple questions and answers, but only to support Plaintiff’s position that AMLNA must produce another witness on Category Nos. 16-18.

In any event, the court notes the questions are on their face improper. Questions regarding the witness’s understanding of relevant terms and phrases within the Song-Beverly Act (Andrew Depo. at 48:8-50:7) are not within the matters for examination set forth in the deposition notice. The questions relating to whether Plaintiff’s vehicle had a defect or qualified for repurchase improperly ask the witness to testify to Defendant’s legal contentions. (Rifkind v. Super. Ct. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1258-1262 [finding “no legitimate reason” to “call upon the deponent to sort out the factual material in the case according to specific legal contentions, and to do this by memory and on the spot”].)

Requests for Production at Deposition

Plaintiff moves to compel further production by Defendant AMLNA in response to RFP No. 3: “All internal reports, memoranda, correspondence and regional field reports pertaining to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” (RFP No. 3.)

A motion to compel production of documents described in the deposition notice “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(b)(1).)

Here, good cause appears on the face of this RFP. Nevertheless, Defendant justifies its objection based on the work product doctrine. (Haroutunian Decl. ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objection to the Haroutunian Declaration is sustained as to only the following language: “and are ‘not discoverable under any circumstances.’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030 subd. (a).) They are also irrelevant in this case because there was no settlement.” (Haroutunian Decl. at 3:2-3.)

On a mutually agreeable date no later than 06/09/2023, Defendant AMLNA shall produce a PMQ witness for deposition qualified to testify on Category Nos. 2, 5, 7, and 19.

No later than 05/31/2023, Defendant shall serve a privilege log identifying each responsive document withheld from production.

Plaintiff to give notice.