Judge Gail Killefer, Case 22STCV03198 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 22STCV03198, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03198 Hearing Date: March 17, 2023 Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: March 17, 2023

CASE NUMBER: 22STCV03198

CASE NAME: Blanca Vazquez Trujillo, et al. v. General Motors, LLC

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs, Blanca Vazquez Trujillo and Elias Torres Martinez

OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant, General Motors, LLC

TRIAL DATE: August 25, 2023

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK

MOTION: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable

OPPOSITION: March 3, 2023

REPLY: March 10, 2023

TENTATIVE: Plaintiffs’ motion is granted as to categories 1-10 and 26 and requests 1-4 and 6-9 of the PMK Notice. The motion is otherwise denied. Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is also denied. The PMK deposition must commence within 45 days of this date and may take place by videoconference. Plaintiffs are to give notice.

Background

This is a lemon law action arising out of the purchase by Blanca Vazquez Trujillo and Elias Torres Martinez (“Plaintiffs”) of a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado (the “Vehicle”) manufactured by General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs allege that “express and implied warranties” accompanied their purchase of the Vehicle and that the Vehicle was delivered with defects and nonconformities to warranty, including defects to areas such as abnormal noises, steering wheel malfunctions, and abnormal vibrations. Plaintiffs allege that they delivered the Vehicle to Defendant and its authorized representatives on many occasions to repair the Vehicle’s defects and that despite this, Defendant and its representatives were unable to repair the Vehicle.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Song-Beverly Warranty Act, and (2) breach of express warranty under Song-Beverly Warranty Act.

On January 4, 2023, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC’) to resolve the discovery dispute at issue now.

Plaintiffs now move to compel the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) Defendant opposes the motion.

Meet and Confer

A motion to compel deposition must be accompanied by a good faith 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.” (CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).) A declaration under section 2016.040 must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion. (CCP § 2016.040.) “[A] reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [opposing] counsel…. Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294 (Clement).) “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate involves the exercise of discretion.” (Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016, internal ellipses omitted.)

Plaintiffs submits the declaration of their attorney, Devin Bissman (“Bissman”), to demonstrate compliance with statutory meet and confer requirements. Bissman attests the parties have attempted to meet and confer before the IDC and continued to confer during the IDC; however, Defendant has not yet produced a Person Most Knowledge for a deposition. (Bissman Decl. ¶¶ 6-9.)

The Bissman Declaration is sufficient for purposes of CCP § 2025.450. The Bissman Declaration demonstrates that Plaintiffs made some effort to discuss the scope of the PMK Notice with Defendant before and during the IDC. This is sufficient.

Discussion

I. Legal Authority

CCP § 2025.450(a) provides in relevant part:¿¿

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.¿¿¿¿

The motion must set forth specific facts justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.¿ (Id.¿§ 2025.450,¿subd. (b)(1).)¿

II. Analysis

Plaintiffs contend that good cause exists to compel a deposition of Defendant’s PMK and production of documents at deposition because Plaintiffs properly served the PMK Notice and Defendant has failed to produce a witness to date. (Motion, 9-15.) Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that good cause exists to compel the production of documents at deposition because the PMK Notice seeks documents that will allow Plaintiffs to prepare for trial on their claims in this action. (Id.)

In opposition, Defendant contends that the motion should be denied because Plaintiffs are improperly seeking a PMK deposition despite refusing Defendant’s offer of a PMK witness on categories Defendant contends are pertinent to Plaintiffs’ claims, and instead “seek to compel GM to produce a witness and documents about topics concerning other customers and other vehicles that are not at issue here, general policies and procedures that are inapplicable, and impermissible ‘discovery on discovery.’” (Opposition, 1-2.)

Defendant asserts it offered to produce a witness as to categories 1-9 of the PMK Notice, which Plaintiffs refused and instead filed this instant motion to compel. (Id.) Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ motion must be denied because the remaining categories in the PMK Notice seek irrelevant information. (Opposition, 3-8.) For example, Defendant contends that categories 9 and 10, which seek Defendant’s “internal ‘policies and procedures’” and “GM’s internal analysis and investigation of breach of warranty claims in general, or its database and software used for tracking warranty data” are overbroad because Plaintiffs have failed to explain how these categories apply to the Vehicle or may lead to discoverable information. (Opposition, 6-7.) Lastly, Defendant contends the “wholesale disclosure of GM’s internal, confidential materials would cause GM competitive harm as well as harm in the marketplace” and such “confidential, proprietary information” regarding Defendant’s trade secrets should not be compelled “without a heightened showing of the need for the documents to prove Plaintiffs’ case.” (Opp., 7-8.)

In reply, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s opposition fails because the discovery sought in the PMK Notice is permitted by CCP § 2017.010 and related to Plaintiffs’ claims under the Song-Beverly Act. (Reply, 1-2.) Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that discovery into complaints from other customers is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims because such information would be relevant to GM’s conduct pursuant to the Act and its requirements (Id.) Finally, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has failed to demonstrate how any of its objections are grounds for refusing to produce a witness. (Reply, 1-3.)

The court has reviewed the PMK Notice and Defendant’s objections. Based upon this review, the court will compel a deposition of Defendant’s PMK as to categories 1-10 and 26, and production of documents responsive to requests 1-8 only for the below reasons.

First, Defendant has admitted that it does not object to producing a witness responsive to categories 1-9. GM’s discovery responses also show Defendant is willing to produce a witness responsive to categories 10 and 26, as well as requests to repurchase Plaintiffs’ Vehicle. (Sep. Statement, 39-160.) As no witness has been produced to date, the court will compel a deposition of Defendant’s PMK pertaining to these categories.

The court does not compel a deposition of Defendant’s PMK regarding categories 11-25. These categories request information beyond the Subject Vehicle, and ask GM to provide information regarding internal policies, procedures, and analysis.

Defendant objected to these requests on the grounds that they are vague, ambiguous, overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (see Sep. Statement, 37-89.) Defendant also objected to these categories to the extent they sought confidential and proprietary information and to the extent they sought information protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. (Id.)

The court sustains Defendant’s objections that these categories are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are ambiguous and overbroad. For example, request 24 is overbroad because it asks for Defendant’s methodology in categorizing repair presentations, and request 25 asks for the “searchability” of Defendant’s databases. Plaintiffs have not defined what “methodology” or “searchability” mean or how such information is relevant to their claims pertaining to the Vehicle.

Finally, the court compels production of documents responsive to requests 1-4 and 6-9 only. These requests ask Defendant to produce documents relating to the Vehicle, and provide discovery regarding the “technical service bulletins performed” on the Vehicle, for example. (Sep. Statement, 96-127.) Defendant responded to these requests by referring Plaintiffs to documents produced in response to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production, Set One. (Id.) However, previously producing documents Defendant contends to be responsive does not mean that Defendant need not respond to subsequent requests for production.

The court sustains Defendant’s objections to requests for production numbers 5, 10-17. As with categories 11-25, discussed above, the court finds that these requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are vague, ambiguous and overbroad.

For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted as to categories 1-10 and 26 and requests 1-4 and 6-9 of the PMK Notice. The motion is otherwise denied.

Monetary Sanctions

The court may impose sanctions against any party for engaging in conduct constituting a “misuse of the discovery process.” (CCP § 2023.030 (a).) Misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (CCP § 2023.010 (d).)

The court exercises its discretion to deny sanctions here. Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing sanctions to be justified given Defendant’s conduct.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ motion is granted as to categories 1-10 and 26 and requests 1-4 and 6-9 of the PMK Notice. The motion is otherwise denied. Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is also denied. The PMK deposition must commence within 45 days of this date and may take place by videoconference. Plaintiffs are to give notice.