Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV03722, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03722    Hearing Date: September 10, 2024    Dept: F43

Clark Crozer, et al. vs. General Motors, LLC

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Clark Crozer and Karen Crozer

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Attendance of Defendant’s PMQ at deposition.

RULING: Defendant is ordered to produce its PMQ for deposition within the next 30 days. Sanctions are also awarded.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

This action arises from Plaintiffs Clark Crozer and Karen Crozer’s (Plaintiffs) purchase of an allegedly defective 2022 Chevrolet Bolt. On December 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant), alleging a cause of action for a violation of the Song-Beverly Act.

On May 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed and served this motion to compel deposition and for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,970.00.

On July 29, 2024, Defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. Defendants argue in their opposition that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good faith because Plaintiffs simply demanded deposition dates and did not attempt to resolve the dispute without court intervention. Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs only seek irrelevant materials, which is why Defendant objected to many of the topics for deposition. Defendant also argues that some materials are not discoverable because they are trade secrets.

On July 31, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their reply. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant failed to respond to any of their meet and confer attempts. Plaintiffs also argue that their requested matters of examination are relevant and discoverable. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s trade secret and confidentiality claims are meritless.

As will be discussed below, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to find a date for the deposition in the Court’s August 9 Minute Order. While the parties met and conferred, Defendant never provided a date for the deposition. Plaintiffs filed a declaration requesting that the Court rule on this motion.

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 December 28, 2023, Plaintiffs served a Notice of Deposition for Defendant’s Person Most Qualified (PMQ). The deposition was set for January 19, 2024, but Defendant failed to appear for the deposition or raise any objections. On March 22, 2024, Plaintiffs wrote to Defendant to meet and confer regarding the deposition, but Defendant failed to respond. On March 25, 2024, Plaintiffs served their First Amended Notice of Deposition. On April 9, 2024, Defendant served its objections to the Notice. On April 12, 2024, Plaintiffs wrote to Defendant to meet and confer regarding the objections. Defendant did not respond. On April 15, 2024, Plaintiffs served their Second Amended Notice of Deposition, withdrawing one of the categories to which Defendant had objected. On May 7, 2024, following Defendant’s failure to appear or object to the Second Amended Notice, Plaintiffs again wrote to Defendant to meet and confer. Defendant once again did not respond. Plaintiffs then filed this motion.

The Court previously noted that there had been a lack of meet and confer and ordered the parties to meet and confer to find a mutually agreeable date for deposition in the August 9, 2024, Minute Order. The parties were to file a joint statement of their meet and confer efforts and any remaining issues by September 3, 2024. No joint statement was filed on that date, but on September 6, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a declaration regarding Plaintiffs’ effort to meet and confer. The declaration indicates that while Defendant’s counsel spoke with Plaintiffs’ counsel, Defendant’s counsel never provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with a date for the deposition, nor did Defendant’s counsel approve the joint statement that Plaintiffs’ counsel sent him. (Kaufman Decl., ¶¶ 6-9.)

Defendant has failed to comply with the Court’s August 9 Order. The Court orders Defendant to produce its PMQ for deposition within the next 30 days.

Sanctions

Previously, this Court did not award sanctions but stated that if either party fails to comply with this order, the Court will determine if sanctions are appropriate. Plaintiffs requested in their attorney’s declaration that if Defendant does not produce its witness within 30 days, the Court should award monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 per day for every day that Defendant fails to produce a witness beyond that time period, and Defendant has requested that the Court award the previously requested sanctions of $2,970. (Kaufman Decl., ¶ 10.)

Due to Defendant’s continued failure to produce its PMQ for deposition and its failure to comply with the Court’s August 9 Minute Order, the Court finds that $2,970 is an appropriate amount of sanctions. Should Defendant fail to produce its PMQ within the next 30 days, the Court will consider assessing additional sanctions.

ORDER

1.      Plaintiffs’ motion to compel deposition is granted. Defendant must produce its PMQ for deposition within the next 30 days.

2.      Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $2,970 to Plaintiffs’ counsel within the next 30 days.

3.      Moving party to give notice.