Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00447, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00447    Hearing Date: January 2, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      January 2, 2024                                   TRIAL DATE: April 23, 2024

CASE:                         JENNIFER CASTILLO and DELFINO GONZALEZ v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00447

MOTION TO COMPEL

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Jennifer Castillo and Delfino Gonzalez (“Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY:      No timely response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed November 16, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiffs move for an order compelling Defendant’s person most qualified (“PMQ”) to appear for deposition.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiffs Jennifer Castilla and Delfino Gonzalez’s warranty claim for a 2016 Chevrolet Taho, Vehicle Identification Number 1GNSCAKC7GR271633 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff filed this complaint on July 8, 2022.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel deposition is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ motion for an order compelling further responses to their requests for production is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanction is GRANTED for a total of $450.00.

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).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs move for an order compelling Defendant to produce its PMQ for deposition, for examination of specific issues, and for an order compelling Defendant to provide responsive documents to their requests for production. Plaintiffs provide they served a notice of deposition on September 26, 2023, with a scheduled deposition date of October 25, 2023. (Thomas Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiffs provide that Defendant objected to the deposition and failed to appear for the deposition. (Id. ¶¶ 5-8.)

            Plaintiffs have served Defendant with a notice of deposition for Defendant’s person most qualified, but Defendant has failed to proceed with the deposition. Defendant has also failed to provide a timely opposition to the present matter. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified is granted. However, the court does not rule on Plaintiffs’ request for an order compelling the deponent to testify as to specific topics.

Further, Plaintiffs’ request for an order compelling a response to their requests for production of documents is denied because Plaintiffs’ separate statement contains only copy-pasted language. 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”. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with this requirement.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanction is granted for a total of $450.00.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel deposition is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ motion for an order compelling further responses to their requests for production is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanction is GRANTED for a total of $450.00.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   January 2, 2024                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org