Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21AHCV00150, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21AHCV00150    Hearing Date: November 20, 2023    Dept: X

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     November 20, 2023                            TRIAL DATE: December 5, 2023.

CASE:                         SAMUEL ZOQUIAPA, an individual and MAIRA ZOQUIAPA, an individual, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 21AHCV00150

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Samuel Zoquiapa and Maira Zoquiapa (“Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”)

SERVICE:                              Filed October 24, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed November 3, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed November 13, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiffs move for an order compelling Defendant’s personal most qualified (“PMQ”) to appear for deposition and for an order compelling production of documents.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiffs’ lemon law claim for a 2018 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiffs filed their complaint on December 15, 2021.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition testimony of Defendant’s PMQ is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to produce its PMQ within 10 days of this order or at a date and time mutually agreeable to both parties.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deponent to testify as to specific topics is DENIED.

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to its requests for the production of documents is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (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.”

            Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 subdivision (b) requires that any motion under subdivision (a) set forth specific facts showing good cause and a meet and confer declaration or, when a deponent fails to attend the deposition, a declaration stating the moving party contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480, subd. (a).) “If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480, subd. (i).)

            “ ‘Although the scope of civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless.’ ” (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court of Orange County (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039.) “ ‘For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.” [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] ... [T]he scope of discovery extends to any information that reasonably might lead to other evidence that would be admissible at trial. “Thus, the scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic and common sense.” ’ ” (Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 754, 767.)

DISCUSSION

            Compel Deposition

            Plaintiffs move for an order compelling Defendant’s PMQ to appear for deposition and answer questions related to 21 topics. Plaintiffs also move for an order compelling production of documents. Plaintiffs provide they served four notices of deposition for Defendant’s PMQ. (Crandall Decl. ¶¶ 13, 16, 19, and 22.) Plaintiffs provide that for each notice, Defendant objected to the deposition. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 17, 19, and 23.) Plaintiffs provide that they attempted to meet and confer by letter with Defendant but did not receive a response from Defendant. (Id. ¶¶ 20-21; 24-26.)

            In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs seek irrelevant discovery because some of the topics for deposition and requests for production are not directly related to Plaintiff’s  specific vehicle. Defendant also argues that it has agreed to produce its PMQ for deposition for select categories of testimony and at an agreed upon date and time. However, Plaintiffs provide that Defendant has not offered any dates for deposition. (Crandall Supplemental Decl. ¶ 3.)

Plaintiffs have served four deposition notices that Defendant has declined to comply with. Defendants complain of Plaintiffs’ unliterally set deposition dates (Moore Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 5, and 8) but have seemingly failed to meet and confer to schedule a mutually agreeable date for deposition. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ is granted. Defendant is ordered to produce its PMQ within 10 days of the date of this order or on a date that is mutually agreeable to both parties.

Plaintiffs contend Defendants PMQ should be compelled to testify to all 21 topics of inquiry, whereas Defendant claims that only topics 1-4, 7, and 10 are relevant. However, the court notes that “[c]ivil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. ‘[I]t is a “central precept” of the Civil Discovery Act ... that discovery ‘be essentially self-executing[.]’ ” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.) Thus, the court declines to rule on which topics are subject to deposition before the deposition has even occurred.

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deponent to testify as to specific topics is denied.

            Request for Production of Documents

            Plaintiffs move for an order compelling Defendants to produce various documents.

The primary issue with Plaintiffs; motion is their separate statement. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires a separate statement to include “[a] statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute”. While Plaintiff facially complies with this requirement by including a “statement of insufficiency” next to each discovery request, Plaintiffs utilize copy-pasted language that fails to specifically address the discovery issue at hand. Plaintiff merely includes stock language claiming that Defendant’s objections are meritless and boilerplate.

Plaintiff’s separate statements fail to adequately establish a proper reason for this court to compel further responses as to the specific discovery request. Plaintiff merely repeats language regarding general principles of Song-Beverly claims but fails to demonstrate why further responses should be ordered as to each matter. Each response is followed by copy-pasted language that does not adequately address the specifics of the discovery request or the response. Even Plaintiff’s reasoning for RFP numbers 3, 6, and 8, which are followed by a shorter statement of insufficiency, contain identical language to each other. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is denied. Plaintiff may file another motion to compel further with a code-compliant separate statement.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition testimony of Defendant’s PMQ is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to produce its PMQ within 10 days of this order or at a date and time mutually agreeable to both parties.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deponent to testify as to specific topics is DENIED.

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to its requests for the production of documents is DENIED.

Dated:   November 20, 2023                                       ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court