Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

ROCIO A. PALACIOS, et al.,

GENERAL MOTORS LLC, 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable and request for production of documents at deposition is GRANTED.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case arises from the purchase of an automobile and allegations of violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Rocio A. Palacios and Antonio Hernandez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) purchased a new 2018 Chevrolet Sonic (the “Subject Vehicle”) on October 17, 2018. (Complaint, ¶ 8.) Included in their purchase, Plaintiffs received multiple express warranties directly from General Motors LLC (“Defendant”). (Ibid.) Plaintiffs allege that the Subject Vehicle was delivered to them with serious defects and nonconformities to the warranty including issues with the engine, the Subject Vehicle not starting, the Subject Vehicle shutting off while driving, lack of acceleration, and sputtering. (Complaint, ¶ 9.)  

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On July 6, 2022, Plaintiffs Rocio Palacios and Antonio Hernandez filed their Complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC.

On June 8, 2023, the parties participated in IDC.

On January 9, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel a deposition of Defendant’s person(s) most knowledgeable and the production of certain documents at the deposition. 

On February 6, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition. 

To date, no reply has been filed.  

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiffs move to compel a deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable and produce certain documents at deposition. 

I. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) provides:¿¿ 

¿ 

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, 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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”¿ 

¿ 

¿ 

A motion under Section 2025.450, subdivision (a), must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production of the requested documents in the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).) Good cause is construed liberally and has been found where documents are necessary for trial preparation. (See Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court 1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 587.) The motion must also “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce documents…by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)¿¿  

Additionally, any error or irregularity contained in the deposition notice is waived unless the party served with the deposition notice serves written objections three calendar days prior to the date of deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410(a).) 

II. Discussion

Plaintiff seeks a court order compelling Defendant’s person most knowledgeable to sit for a deposition and produce certain documents at deposition.

Meet and Confer

The parties first dispute whether Plaintiffs satisfied the meet and confer requirement prior to bringing this motion.

On November 13, 2023, Plaintiffs served the notice of deposition of Defendant’s PMK with request for production of documents. (Mizrahi Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) The notice set the deposition for November 28, 2023 and identified twelve categories for examination that are primarily related to the subject vehicle’s sale, repair history and Defendant’s policies and procedures. (Ibid.) On November 28, 2023, Defendant served objections to the deposition notice and informed Plaintiffs that a witness would not be produced for the deposition that day. (Mizrahi Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. B.)

On December 5, 2023, Plaintiffs sent Defendant a meet and confer letter requesting an alternative deposition date by December 12, 2023. (Mizrahi Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. C.) On December 12, 2023, Defendant responded to Plaintiffs’ letter and stated that while it was objecting to several of the PMK categories, it was willing to produce a witness on other categories. (Mizrahi Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. D.) On December 14, 2023, Plaintiffs sent Defendant additional correspondence addressing the PMK categories and asking for actual dates to proceed with the deposition of Defendant’s PMK. (Mizrahi Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. E.) To date, the parties have not settled on a date for the deposition. (Mizrahi Decl., ¶ 10.)

In opposition, Defendant contends that it timely brought objections to the deposition notice and that Plaintiffs never attempted to address the objections or contested categories informally before filing the present motion. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ December 5, 2023 letter did not address Defendant’s objections and refused to narrow the scope of the notice. When Defendant reiterated in the December 12, 2023 letter its willingness to produce PMKs for 8 of the 12 categories in the notice, Plaintiffs instead proceeded to file the instant motion. 

Although Defendant appeared to make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute regarding the deposition outside of court, the Court finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently satisfied the meet and confer requirement.

As demonstrated, after serving a notice of deposition on Defendant, Plaintiffs reached out to Defendant on multiple occasions in an attempt to agree upon a deposition date. Defendant indicated that it objected to producing a person most knowledgeable for certain categories in the deposition notice but would produce one for the other categories. However, Defendant did not agree to produce a PMK for each and every category requested, nor did Defendant provide any deposition dates, necessitating this motion. (Mizrahi Decl., ¶¶ 7-10.) 

Timeliness of Defendant’s Objections

Plaintiffs contend Defendant’s objections to the deposition notice were not timely. 

First, the Court finds that the deposition was properly noticed. Pursuant to CCP § 2025.270, “an oral deposition shall be scheduled for a date at least 10 days after service of the deposition notice.” Here, Plaintiffs’ notice of deposition was served November 13, 2023. (Mizrahi Decl., Ex. A.) The deposition date stated in the notice was November 28, 2023, which was more than ten days away. (Ibid.) 

Next, the Court finds that Defendant failed to timely serve objections to the deposition notice. Pursuant to CCP § 2025.410(a), objections must be served at least three days before the noticed deposition date to retain the ability to object to deficiencies in the notice. Here, objections were due November 25, 2023; however, Defendant did not serve objections until the day of the deposition, November 28, 2023. Therefore, Defendant’s objections are waived. 

Good Cause

Plaintiffs contend there is good cause to compel a deposition of Defendant’s PMK(s) because each of the documents sought by Plaintiff related to the service and warranty repairs of the subject vehicle and Defendant’s policies and procedures are critical for preparing this matter for trial. Plaintiffs are bringing this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, meaning Plaintiffs have the burden to prove that (1) the vehicle had a nonconformity covered by the express warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle (the nonconformity element); (2) the vehicle was presented to an authorized representative of the manufacturer of the vehicle for repair (the presentation element); and (3) the manufacturer or his representative did not repair the nonconformity after a reasonable number of repair attempts (the failure to repair element).” (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 152.)

Defendant contends that it has thus far timely responded to 190 discovery requests and has turned over the following materials: 

• the 2018 Chevrolet Limited Warranty and Owner Assistance Information (i.e., the document containing the warranty at issue);

• GM’s Global Warranty History Reports for the Sonic, including that vehicle’s Transaction History documenting all the warranty repairs for which GM – not Plaintiffs – paid;

• GM’s Customer Assistance Center records reflecting communications regarding the Sonic (i.e., the Service Request Activity History);

• the Repair Order Details and Vehicle History related to the Sonic;

• the BARS invoice reflecting the components included in the Sonic at the time of delivery and the corresponding MSRP value;

• lists of technical and informational service bulletins issued for 2018 Chevrolet Sonic vehicles, as well as specific TSBs;

• the owner’s manual for the 2018 Chevrolet Sonic; and

• the manufacturer’s product brochures for the 2018 Chevrolet Sonic.

Additionally, Defendant contends it is willing to produce a PMK on eight of the twelve topics contained in Plaintiffs’ deposition notice.  

Defendant contends good cause does not exist to compel the deposition at issue because Plaintiffs seek to depose a PMK on four topics that are not relevant to the instant case.

Plaintiffs’ notice requested to depose Defendant’s PMK for the following categories: 

1. The nature and extent of the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s entire service and warranty history.

2. Defendant’s warranty policies, procedures and guidelines.

3. Defendant’s policies, procedures and guidelines regarding the handling of customer complaints.

4. Defendant’s policies, procedures and guidelines to ensure compliance with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

5. Defendant’s failure to repurchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

6. All COMMUNICATIONS between Defendant and Plaintiff, or anyone acting on Plaintiffs’ behalf.

7. All COMMUNICATIONS between Defendant and its authorized repair facilities

regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

8. All COMMUNICATIONS between Defendant and any PERSON regarding the

SUBJECT VEHICLE.

9. All technical service bulletins applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

10. All recalls applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

11. All DOCUMENTS produced by Defendant in this action.

12. Defendant’s third-party dispute resolution program including policies and procedures, operating guidelines and administration. 

Defendant has stated its unwillingness to produce a PMK for categories 2-4 and 12 because they seek information unrelated to any repairs to Plaintiffs’ subject vehicle under warranty, which Defendant contends is the only issue relevant to this action. 

The Court disagrees with Defendant and finds that good cause exists to grant Plaintiffs’ requests. Though Defendant’s warranty policies, dispute resolution process, and guidelines and procedures relating to customer complaints do not apply solely to the subject vehicle, they are relevant to whether Defendant complied with the standard for responding to customer complaints dictated by the Song-Beverly Act. Therefore, Plaintiffs should be entitled to depose Defendant’s PMK on these issues. 

As a result, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK on all 12 categories listed in the November 13, 2023 deposition notice. The Court similarly GRANTS the motion to produce the documents requested in the deposition notice. 

Plaintiffs do not seek sanctions.

DATED:  February 13, 2024

______________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court