Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 22CHCV01269, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01269    Hearing Date: August 20, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 8-20-24

Case # 22CHCV01269, Melissa Chavez vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Melissa Chavez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Attendance of Defendant’s PMK at deposition.

RULING: The parties are ordered to meet and confer.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

This action arises from Plaintiff Melissa Chavez’s (Plaintiff) purchase of an allegedly defective 2021 Honda Passport. On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Defendant), alleging causes of action related to violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

On July 1, 2024, Plaintiffs filed and served this motion to compel deposition and for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,872.50.

On August 7, 2024, Defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. Defendant argues in its opposition that its has not refused to produce a person most knowledge (PMK) and has produced responsive documents. It also argues that Plaintiff has not engaged in a meaningful meet and confer. Next, Defendant argues that its objections are necessary and that the categories and requests for production seek information not connected to the lawsuit.

On August 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed her reply. Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to the deposition of Defendant’s PMK. Next, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s objections on the noticed categories are irrelevant to the instant motion. Finally, Plaintiff argues that her deposition notice was timely served.

ANALYSIS

A party “may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010.) A party may obtain discovery regarding relevant material. (CCP § 2017.010.) 

Evidence is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement.” (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Any doubt on relevance is resolved generally in favor of production. (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98.) 

If, after receiving a deposition notice, a party fails to appear, to answer any question, or to produce any document or tangible thing specified in the deposition notice, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling attendance and production. (CCP § 2025.450(a).)

On November 28, 2023, Plaintiff served a Notice of Deposition for Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK). The deposition was set for December 19, 2024. On December 18, 2023, Defendant served its objections to Plaintiff’s notice. On April 12, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with an amended notice of deposition. On May 7, 2024, Defendant served its objections to Plaintiff’s amended notice of deposition. On May 9, 2024, Plaintiff sought to meet and confer with Defendant and sent a letter to Defendant. Plaintiff requested a response by May 13, 2024, but Defendant did not respond and did not appear for deposition on May 13, 2024. Plaintiff sent a follow-up email that same day, but Defendant did not respond to it, either.

There appears to be a dispute between the parties regarding the sufficiency of the meet and confer. Regardless of who is at fault, it is clear that the parties did not meaningfully meet and confer. The parties are ordered to meet and confer and find a mutually agreeable date for the deposition. As for the dispute over the documents requested and matters for examination, the Court orders the parties to review the acceptable topics for a PMK deposition that are listed in the Court’s Lemon Law discovery order posted on the Court’s website and to proceed with the meet and confer and deposition based on those topics. The partes should also review this Court’s information bulletin and FSC order.

Sanctions

The Court will not issue sanctions at this time. If either party fails to comply with this order, the Court will determine if sanctions are appropriate.

ORDER

1.      The parties are ordered to meet and confer about the scope of the deposition in light of the Court’s Lemon Law discovery order and to find a mutually agreeable date for the deposition.

2.      Moving party to give notice.