Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV02125, Date: 2025-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02125    Hearing Date: February 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: 

Ben and Nina Kass (Plaintiffs) bring this action against Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai) for claims arising out of the purchase of a 2020 Hyundai Santa Fe (the Subject Vehicle). The Complaint alleges several causes of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Before the Court is Hyundai’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of both Plaintiffs. Plaintiff filed an untimely and late opposition on January 28, 2025 (their statutory deadline of January 27, 2025 per C.C.P. § 1005.) which the Court elects to consider these papers pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 3.1300(d).

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

On June 24, 2024, Hyundai served Notice of Deposition for both Plaintiffs to be held July 19, 2024. (Willette Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, Exhs. A-B.) On July 16, 2024, both Plaintiffs served objections to the Notice on grounds that the deposition was unilaterally noticed and also objected to each of the twenty-one requests for production of documents. (Willette Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Exhs. C-D.)  Plaintiff stated they will meet and confer with Defendant to reschedule; however, no evidence was provided that Plaintiff took any such steps.

On December 19, 2024, counsel for Hyundai sent an email to Plaintiffs’ counsel asking for available deposition dates in February 2025. (Willette Decl. Exh. E.)  Plaintiff has offered three dates in April 2025, nearly 10 months after the initial noticed deposition.

Discussion

The Court finds Hyundai’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, Hyundai’s meet and confer efforts consist of a single email sent five months after the noticed deposition date. This letter made no reference to the fact that Hyundai would be seeking to compel and instead asked for Plaintiffs’ availability for dates in February. (Willette Decl. Exh. E.)  The letter requested that Plaintiffs respond by Monday, December 23, 2024. (Id.) Less than 24 hours after sending the email, Hyundai’s counsel filed the instant motion. Nothing about this email or the circumstances surrounding it evidences Hyundai’s good faith effort to meet and confer prior to bringing this motion.

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel the Depositions of Ben and Nina Kass is DENIED without prejudice.  A trial setting conference is scheduled in two months.   The case will be set for trial shortly and 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 

Hyundai Motor America’s Motion to Compel Deposition came on regularly for hearing on February 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 DEPOSITIONS OF BEN AND NINA KASS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

PLAINTIFFS TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.