Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV03107, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03107    Hearing Date: January 21, 2025    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 01-21-25

Case # 23CHCV03107, Gumayagay, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Trial Date: 10-20-25

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Vina Nota Gumayagay and Carlos Martinez

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

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable, striking Defendant’s objections to the 34 Matters of Examination and Requests for Production of documents, and awarding $3,175.00 in monetary sanctions.

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

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On March 31, 2023, Plaintiffs Vina Nota Gumayagay and Carlos Martinez (Plaintiffs) leased a 2023 Honda Ridgeline.  The vehicle began experiencing several mechanical defects, and Plaintiffs sued defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (Honda) for violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, alleging that Honda was unable to repair the defects and that Honda did not replace the car or make restitution.  The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and a Song-Beverly violation. 

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiffs served a Notice of Deposition of Honda’s Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) detailing 34 Matters for Examination and containing 16 written Requests for Production of documents at the deposition.  (Declaration of Chris Grigoryan, ¶ 15, Exh. 1.)  The deposition was noticed for March 12, 2024.  (Ibid.)  On March 8, 2024, Honda served objections to the deposition notice and did not provide a PMK witness or alternative dates.  (Grigoryan Dec., ¶ 16, Exh. 2.) 

On April 25, 2024, Plaintiffs served an amended deposition notice with 34 Matters of Examination and 16 written Requests for Production of documents, and a deposition date of May 8, 2024.  (Grigoryan Dec., ¶ 17, Exh. 3.)  On May 10, 2024, Honda served objections to the amended notice and did not provide a PMK witness or alternative dates.  (Grigoryan Dec., ¶ 18, Exh. 4.)

Plaintiffs served a second amended deposition notice on May 20, 2024 with the same matters of examination and requests for production, for a deposition on June 6, 2024.  (Grigoryan Dec., ¶ 19, Exh. 5.)  On June 3, 2024, Honda served objections to the notice and did not provide alternative dates.  (Grigoryan Dec., ¶ 20, Exh. 6.) 

On June 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion to compel the deposition of Honda’s PMK and production of documents.  On January 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition. 

Honda filed an opposition on January 15, 2025.[1]  Honda states it filed a late opposition because it anticipated Plaintiffs would withdraw their motion after Honda offered to reschedule the PMK deposition to April 2025, the Opposition deadline was mis-calendared, and Honda’s counsel was forced to evacuate due to the Los Angeles fires.  (Declaration of Scott D. Sharp, ¶¶ 10-12.)

No reply has been filed.

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.)

On April 25, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent Honda’s counsel a meet and confer letter about the PMK deposition to avoid court intervention.  (Grigoryan Dec., ¶ 21, Exh. 7.)  Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledged Honda’s objections, re-noticed the deposition, and asked Honda to provide alternative dates.  (Grigoryan Dec., ¶ 21, Exh. 7.)  Plaintiffs’ counsel sent another meet and confer letter on May 20, 2024.  (Grigoryan Dec., ¶ 22, Exh. 8.)  Honda did not provide a reasonable response.

Honda states the parties have not met and conferred according to the Court’s Song-Beverly Discovery Order.  Honda’s counsel states he contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel via telephone and email on July 3, 2024 offering a PMK deposition on January 15, 2025.  (Declaration of Scott D. Sharp, ¶ 6.)  After receiving no response, Honda followed up with multiple email correspondences.  On September 11, 2024, Plaintiffs rejected the January 15th date because of unavailability and asked for April 2025 dates.  (Sharp Dec., ¶¶ 7-8, Exhs. D, E.)  On September 12, 2024, Honda’s counsel emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel stating Honda would provide April 2025 dates and asked Plaintiffs to continue the motion to compel until May 2025, after the deposition.  (Sharp Dec., ¶ 9, Exh. D.)  Honda’s counsel sent another email on October 30, 2024 to confirm that Plaintiffs would continue the motion.  (Sharp Dec., Exh. E.)  Honda’s counsel states that on January 15, 2025, Plaintiffs agreed to continue the motion.  (Sharp Dec., ¶ 9.)

The Court has reviewed the documents related to this motion and will not decide the motion on the merits at this time due to the insufficiency of the meet and confer process.  Although the moving papers indicate that several meet and confer letters and emails were sent prior to Plaintiffs filing their motion, the parties do not present evidence that they met and conferred telephonically or via video conference as required by the Court’s Song-Beverly Discovery Order.  There also seems to be confusion about whether Plaintiffs agreed to continue this motion until May 2025.

The Court orders the parties to meet and confer directly, not by email or letter.  Additionally, the parties are ordered to file a joint statement of remaining issues by a date to be set by the Court. The joint statement should briefly describe the matters in dispute, followed by Plaintiffs’ arguments, then Honda’s arguments.

ORDER

1.  The parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference, not by email or letter.

2.  The parties shall submit a joint statement of the remaining issues as described above.  The format should be as follows: the parties should recite the specific discovery request at issue, followed by the moving party’s statement of why it should be compelled, followed by the opposing party’s statement of why it should not be compelled.  To the extent that an argument is repeated for a subsequent request, the party shall simply refer to the section where the argument was previously made.

3.  The dates for the status report and continued hearings will be set at the hearing on this motion. 

Plaintiffs to give notice.