Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV03009, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03009    Hearing Date: April 26, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 4-26-24

Case # 23CHCV03009, Mina Asghari vs. General Motors, LLC

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PMQ

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Mina Asghari

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

An order compelling Defendant to produce its PMQ for deposition, as well as sanctions,

RULING: The parties are ordered to meet and confer and prepare a joint statement of remaining issues.

SUMMARY OF ACTION AND ANALYSIS

On October 6, 2023, Plaintiff Mina Asghari (Plaintiff) filed this lemon law case against Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant). As part of Plaintiff’s discovery requests in this case, Plaintiff served a notice of deposition for Defendant’s person most qualified (PMQ) on November 2, 2023. On November 21, 2023, Defendant served objections to the notice, which Plaintiff claims were baseless, boilerplate objections.

On November 28, 2023, Plaintiff began making attempts to meet and confer with Defendant. These attempts included leaving a voice message, writing to Defendant, requesting to schedule a Zoom meeting, and indicating that Plaintiff would send Defendant some documents that Plaintiff had in her possession. Plaintiff alleges, however, that Defendant failed to respond to these communications.

On November 30, 2023, Plaintiff served her First Amended Notice of Deposition. Defendant again served objections to the notice on December 15, 2023. That same day, Plaintiff once more tried to communicate with Defendant, but Defendant did not respond.

Plaintiff served her Second Amended Notice of Deposition on February 21, 2024. Defendant served the same objections on March 12, 2024. On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff tried again to meet and confer with Defendant, but Defendant failed to respond again, just has it had to Plaintiff’s other attempts to meet and confer. Plaintiff filed this motion to compel deposition of Defendant’s PMQ on April 2, 2024. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,970.00.

Defendant’s opposition attempts to argue that Plaintiff somehow failed to meet and confer in good faith, when it was Defendant who never responded to any Plaintiff’s correspondence. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because she only seeks to compel irrelevant testimony. Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiff impermissibly seeks production of trade secret material. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is groundless.

Plaintiff argues in reply that Defendant ignored her meet and confer efforts. Next, Plaintiff argues that her request matters of examination are relevant and discoverable. Finally, Plaintiff argues that sanctions are warranted.

ORDER

The parties are ordered to comply with the Court’s new discovery order in connection with this motion and any other pending discovery matters, subject to objections by the parties, with a continued hearing date to be set at the hearing on this motion. The Court’s discovery order is posted online, along with this Department’s courtroom information and Final Status Conference Order, all of which the parties are ordered to review. The Court will also order the parties to prepare a joint status report regarding this discovery dispute, setting forth issues they have agreed upon and, if any, remaining issues in dispute, with the date for that status report to be determined at the continued hearing.

The section of the Court’s new discovery for Lemon Law cases that is relevant to this motion reads as follows:

“4. Depositions:  Within the time limits allowed by law, Defendant may depose plaintiff, and plaintiff may depose the person most knowledgeable (PMK) as to up to 5 categories of information plus a deposition of the PMK as to why the subject vehicle was not repurchased, in addition to depositions of any experts identified by the parties, after a formal demand and exchange of expert witness information, per CCP § 2034.  Parties shall meet and confer as to whether there is a need to take any additional depositions.  Any additional depositions may only be noticed and taken by stipulation and/or court order (via motion upon showing good cause).

If a deponent resides outside of the state, the deposition may be taken by video conference or telephone.  The parties will not be required to travel to California, and the attorneys will not be required to travel out of state.”

The parties should use this to help them in their preparation of their joint status report.

The Court orders the parties to meet and confer and prepare a joint statement of the issues.