Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24NNCV01920, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24NNCV01920 Hearing Date: January 10, 2025 Dept: A
MOTION TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION
Los Angeles Superior Court
Case # 24NNCV01920
|
MP: |
Jaime Martinez (Plaintiff) |
|
RP: |
FCA US, LLC (Defendant) |
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:
Jaime Martinez
(Plaintiff) brings this action against FCA US, LLC (Defendant). Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant sold her a defective 2018 RAM ProMaster City (Subject
Vehicle) and thereafter refused to repurchase the vehicle in violation of the
Song-Beverly Act.
Before the Court is a motion by Plaintiff to compel the
deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) as to a variety of
categories. Plaintiff states that despite noticing the deposition and
attempting to meet and confer, Defendant has not produced its PMK.
Defendant does not oppose this motion. The Court notes that, pursuant to
C.R.C. Rule 8.54(c), a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to its
being granted.
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
August 21, 2024, Plaintiff served notice for the deposition of Defendant’s PMK
to take place on September 27, 2024. (Lopez Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) At the
same time, Plaintiff’s counsel requested Defendant provide alternative dates if
the September 27 did not work for Defendant’s PMK. (Id.)
On
September 16, 2024, Plaintiff followed up via email to Defendant’s counsel but
received no reply. (Lopez Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. B.) Similar meet and confer
correspondence on September 26, 2024 also received no reply. (Lopez Decl.
¶ 6.) Defendant’s PMK did not appear for the noticed deposition. (Lopez
Decl. ¶ 7.) The attempts of Plaintiff’s counsel to secure alternative
dates for the deposition in emails dated October 2, 2024 and October 8, 2024
also received no response. (Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.) On November 26, 2024,
Plaintiff proceeded to file the instant motion.
Discussion
The
Court finds Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted. Plaintiff’s motion clearly
demonstrates that Defendant (1) did not serve any formal objections to the
noticed deposition, (2) failed to produce its PMK for deposition, and (3) failed
to respond to any communications regarding the deposition. Further, Plaintiff
has attached a declaration as to their meet and confer effort both before and
after the noticed deposition as required by C.C.P. § 2025.450(b)(2).
Accordingly,
the motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK is GRANTED. The
deposition is to occur no later than February 24, 2024, or any date thereafter
upon stipulation of counsel.
Sanctions
“If a motion under subdivision (a) is
granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing
with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and
against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless
the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial
justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction
unjust.” (C.C.P. § 2025.450.)
Given
Defendant did not oppose this motion, the Court finds they are necessarily
without substantial justification. As such, the Court awards $660 in sanctions
as against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, jointly and severally. This
amount reflects two hours of associate attorney work at the stated rate of $200
per hour, a half-hour of managing attorney time at the stated rate of $400 per
hour, and the $60 filing fee. (Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 10-12.) In the Court’s experience
this amount is reasonable to compensate Plaintiff’s efforts in bringing this
motion to obtain compliance. The
Defendant filed no opposition so the additional costs requested to address the
opposition are moot.
---
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
Jaime Martinez’s Motion to Compel Deposition came
on regularly for hearing on January 10, 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 DEFENDANT’S PMK IS
GRANTED.
THE DEPOSITION IS TO OCCUR NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 28, 2024,
OR ANY DATE THEREAFTER UPON STIPULATION OF COUNSEL.
SANCTIONS
ARE AWARDED IN THE AMOUNT OF $660 AS AGAINST DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL, JOINTLY AND
SEVERALLY. SANCTIONS TO BE PAID WITHIN
30 DAYS.
PLAINTIFF
TO GIVE NOTICE.
IT IS SO
ORDERED.
DATE:
January 10, 2025 _______________________________
F.M.
TAVELMAN, Judge
Superior Court of California
County of
Los Angeles