Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV02453, Date: 2024-12-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV02453 Hearing Date: December 12, 2024 Dept: F43
Dept.
F43
Date:
12-12-2024
Case
# 23CHCV02453, Sosa, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., et al.
Trial
Date: 03-17-2025
MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF MEDARDO SOSA
MOVING
PARTY: Defendant Ford Motor Company
RESPONDING
PARTIES: Plaintiffs Medardo Sosa and Isabelle Garcia
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Order
compelling deposition of Plaintiff Medardo Sosa and $560.00 in sanctions.
RULING: Motion is granted.
SUMMARY
OF ACTION
On
June 22, 2019, Plaintiffs Medardo Sosa (Sosa) and Isabelle Garcia purchased a
2019 Ford Mustang from Defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford). The vehicle began experiencing several
mechanical defects, and Plaintiffs sued Ford for violating the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, alleging that Ford and co-defendant Autonation Ford
Valencia were unable to repair the defects and that Ford did not replace the
car or make restitution.
On
September 18, 2023, Ford served a deposition notice on Sosa. The deposition was scheduled for November 21,
2023. Sosa objected to the deposition
notice and its requests for production. After subsequent meet and confer
attempts, the parties agreed to do the deposition in March 8, 2024. The day before the deposition, Sosa informed
Ford he would not attend the deposition.
Ford
filed this motion to compel Sosa’s deposition on November 12, 2024. Sosa filed his opposition on November 27,
2024. Ford filed a reply on December 5,
2024.
Meet and Confer
A
motion to compel a deposition must include either a meet and confer declaration
or, “when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the
documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the
deposition notice, . . . a declaration stating that the petitioner has
contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§§ 2025.450, subd. (b), 2016.040.)
Ford’s
counsel of record, Ravi K Lally, states he attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s
counsel on three separate occasions prior to filing this motion. (Declaration of Ravi K. Lally, ¶¶ 3-6.)
On
September 18, 2023, Lally sent a meet and confer letter requesting opposing
counsel send dates in December 2023 for Sosa’s deposition, opposing counsel did
not respond, and Lally served a deposition notice and request for production of
documents for November 21, 2023 on Sosa on that same day. (Lally Dec., ¶ 3, Exhs. B, C.) On November 16, 2023, opposing counsel served
an objection to the notice on the grounds that it unilaterally set a date and
time on which Sosa was not available. (Id.,
¶ 3, Exh. D, at p. 2.) Opposing counsel
also objected to the requests for production on the grounds that the requests
are unduly burdensome, seek irrelevant material, and seek documents Ford could
readily obtain itself from other sources.
(Ibid.)
On
November 17, 2023, Lally emailed opposing counsel requesting dates for Sosa’s
deposition. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. E, at
p. 1.) After receiving no response,
Lally served a second deposition notice for January 23, 2024 on November 20,
2024. (Ibid., Exh. F.) It appears Lally sent this request to an
email account called “EmailServices” rather than directly to opposing
counsel. (Exh. E, at p. 1.)
After
receiving no response, Lally emailed opposing counsel Tyson Smith on January
22, 2024, requesting deposition dates for March 2024. (Id., ¶ 5, Exh. G.) Smith responded on January 25, 2024 with potential
dates, the parties settled on March 8, 2024, and Lally served a third
deposition notice on January 26, 2024. (Id.,
¶¶ 5-6, Exhs. H, I.) On March 5, 2024, Sosa
served objections to the requests for production in the third deposition
notice. (Id., Exh. J.)
On
March 7, 2024, opposing counsel Rabiya Tirmizi emailed Lally stating that
because “we have no agreed PMK deposition date, no discovery, and the trial
date is a year out (March 17, 2025), we will need to reschedule tomorrow’s
Plaintiffs depositions.” (Id.,
Exh. K.) Lally emailed opposing counsel
Smith on May 1, 2024 to seek alternative deposition dates. (Id., Exh. M.)
Summary of Arguments
Ford
argues the Court should compel Sosa’s deposition because Ford has served four
timely notices of deposition on Sosa since September 2023. Sosa’s refusal to comply has obstructed
Ford’s ability to complete essential discovery.
Sosa refuses to provide alternative deposition dates and failed to
appear and meaningfully reply to Ford’s requests. Sosa waited until the eve of the March 8,
2024 deposition to refuse to appear as agreed. Such dilatory tactics are
misuses of the discovery process which have delayed Ford’s trial
preparation. The Court should award
sanctions for Sosa’s nonappearance at the deposition.
Sosa
argues in opposition that Ford has demanded discovery without refusing to
cooperate. This motion was unnecessary
because Sosa was always willing to be deposed.
Ford has made no efforts to meet and confer or contact Sosa since May 1,
2024. Ford waited until shortly before
the filing deadline to file this motion.
Prior to filing this motion, Ford did not provide a date to depose its
Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) despite Plaintiffs’ requests and efforts to
schedule depositions. Plaintiffs are
currently working to provide Ford with available deposition dates between
December 9, 2024 and January 31, 2025. Further,
Ford has not provided Plaintiffs with the documentation needed to prepare
Plaintiffs for depositions. The Court
should not award sanctions.
Ford
replies that it presented sufficient evidence—its four noticed depositions—of
attempting to meet and confer with opposing counsel. Plaintiffs do not provide legal support for not
appearing at the March 8, 2024 deposition.
Plaintiffs withhold alternative dates for Sosa’s deposition because Ford
did not provide a date for its corporative representative’s deposition. No legal authority supports this
argument. Sanctions are proper.
ANALYSIS
An
oral deposition shall be scheduled for a date at least 10 days after service of
the deposition notice.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2025.270, subd. (a).) A
properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or
party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce
documents for inspection and copying.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd.
(a).)
“If,
after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . 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 . . . described in
the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling
deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document .
. . described in the deposition notice.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd.
(a).)¿ The motion must set forth both facts showing good cause justifying the
demand for any documents and a meet and confer declaration.¿ (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (b)(2).)¿
A
motion to compel production of documents described in a deposition notice must
attach declarations with facts showing “good cause” for inspecting the
requested documents. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2025.450, (b)(1).) “Good cause” exists
where the specific facts show the documents are necessary for the demanding
party to prepare for trial and to prevent surprise. (See Associated Brewers Distributing Co.
v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 587.)
As
an initial matter, neither party’s moving papers or supporting declarations
address the issue of “good cause,” or lack thereof, for the requested
documents.
Ford
properly noticed Sosa of the depositions at least ten days before the
deposition dates. Ford noticed Sosa on September
18, 2023 for a November 21, 2023 deposition.
Ford noticed Sosa on November 20, 2023 for a January 23, 2024
deposition. Sosa’s counsel objected to
these dates and Ford’s requests for production, and did not provide alternative
dates until January 2024. Ford noticed
Sosa on January 26, 2024 for a deposition on the agreed upon date of March 8,
2024. On March 7, 2024, Plaintiffs
unilaterally decided Sosa would not attend the March 8 deposition until Ford
scheduled Plaintiffs’ PMK deposition with Ford’s corporate representative. Sosa did not attend the March 8, 2024
deposition. When Ford asked Plaintiffs
for alternative dates, Plaintiffs did not respond.
Plaintiffs
argue Ford refused to cooperate and resolve this dispute informally, but the
moving papers show that between September 2023 and May 2024, Ford attempted to set
alternative deposition dates at Plaintiffs’ convenience. Plaintiffs also provide no legal basis for Sosa’s
refusal to appear at the March 8th deposition or provide alternative
dates. A party may not withhold
discovery responses or refuse to attend a deposition in order to force the
opposing party to comply with its own deposition requests. If Plaintiffs wish to compel Ford to set a
deposition date for its PMK, Plaintiffs should file a motion seeking a court
order to do so. (See Code Civ. Proc., §
2025.010.)
Accordingly,
the Court grants Defendant Ford Motor Company’s motion to compel Plaintiff
Medardo Sosa’s deposition and production of documents.
Sanctions
Plaintiff
requests $560.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Medardo Sosa and his
attorney of record. (Lally Dec., ¶
9.) This amount covers the time spent
preparing this motion and a $60.00 filing fee.
The
court may impose sanctions against a “party-affiliated” deponent who fails to
appear or produce the request materials requested in the deposition
notice. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.450,
subds. (a), (g)(1), 2025.480, subd. (j).)
The court must impose monetary sanctions “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” or the prevailing
party failed to make reasonable efforts to resolve the issues. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.450, subd. (g)(1), 2023.030,
subd. (a).)
The
Court cannot award sanctions because Ford’s supporting declaration does not
break down the time spent on this motion or state counsel’s hourly rate. However, Ford does state he spent $60.00
filing this motion.
Accordingly,
the Court awards Defendant Ford Motor Company $60.00 in monetary sanctions.
ORDER
Defendant Ford Motor Compnay’s motion to compel
Plaintiff Medardo Sosa’s deposition and production of documents is granted.
1. Plaintiff
Medardo Sosa is ordered to appear for a deposition on a mutually agreed upon
date within 21 days of the date of this order.
2. Plaintiff Medardo Sosa and his counsel of
record are ordered to pay sanctions in the total amount of $60.00. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered
to pay these sanctions to Defendant’s counsel within twenty (20) days of the
date of this order.
Defendant to give notice