Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00114, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00114    Hearing Date: March 7, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Nora Aguilar (Plaintiff) brings this action against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) for claims arising out of the purchase of a 2016 Honda HR-V (the Subject Vehicle). The Complaint alleges several causes of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Honda’s Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK). Honda opposes the motion and Plaintiff replies.  

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

“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.” (C.C.P. § 2025.450(a).)

II.                 MERITS

Timeline

Plaintiff’s deposition notice was served on Defendant on October 12, 2023, noticed for January 11, 2024. (Marks. Decl. ¶ 16, Exh. 5.) On or about December 29, 2023, Honda served its objection to the notice. (Id, Exh. 6.) Honda objected on grounds that the deposition was unilaterally set and asked that Plaintiff consult with counsel as to alterative dates. (Id. at p. 2 [“Please consult with counsel so that a mutually agreeable date and time can be arranged for all parties concerned.”].)

On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Honda’s then attorney of record (Clark Hill LLP) and requested that they provide alternative deposition dates no later than January 26, 2024. (Id., Exh. 7.) On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Honda’s counsel an identical email, this time requesting alternative dates no later than February 7, 2023 [sic]. (Id., Exh. 8.) Plaintiff maintains that Honda has failed to provide any alternative dates and thus the deposition must be compelled.

On October 18, 2024, Bowman and Brooke (Bowman) substituted in as attorneys for Honda. (Dixon Decl. ¶ 9.) Bowman states that since they have substituted into the case, Plaintiff’s counsel has made no communications regarding the deposition of Honda’s PMK. (Dixon Decl. ¶ 11.)

Discussion

The Court finds Plaintiff’s motion should be denied without prejudice for failure to meet and confer in good faith for the reasons set forth below.

A motion under C.C.P. § 2025.450 must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating that the moving party has made a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion, or, if the motion is based on the deponent's failure to attend the deposition and to produce documents, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the moving party has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (C.C.P. §§ 2025.450(b)(2), 2016.040.) The Court may deny a motion to compel discovery for lack of a reasonable and good faith attempt to meet and confer. (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1436-1439; Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434-435.)

Here, the record is clear that Plaintiff attempted to resolve the issue with Honda’s prior counsel but neglected to meet and confer with Honda’s new counsel of record, Bowman, prior to bringing this motion. While an attorney taking over a case is usually charged with becoming acquainted with its details, it makes little sense to impute the prior attorney’s failure to respond to meet and confer to the new attorney. The Court does not find it unreasonable to view C.C.P. § 2016.040 as requiring a plaintiff to reach out to newly substituted counsel when their previous meet and confer attempts went without response. This is especially true where those meet and confer attempts consisted of form language emails sent several months prior to the new attorney substituting into the case.

As a last note, the Court admonishes Honda for having initially objected to the deposition on grounds that it was unilaterally noticed. Despite being commonly asserted, unilateral notice of a deposition is not a valid means of objection under C.C.P. § 2025.410. Though it may be a professional courtesy to mutually schedule a deposition, the Civil Discovery Act does not require it. (see Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Serv. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1124). “The service of a deposition notice under Section 2025.240 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.” (C.C.P. § 2025.280(a).)

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel the Depositions of Honda’s PMK is DENIED without prejudice.  The Court notes that this case is set for trial in just under five months and has already been continued once. Better cooperation between the parties is encouraged to timely complete discovery prior to trial.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Nora Aguilar’s Motion to Compel Deposition came on regularly for hearing on March 7, 2025, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO MEET AND CONFER IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.