Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00590, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00590    Hearing Date: January 3, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      January 3, 2024                                   TRIAL DATE: March 19, 2024

CASE:                         OMAR ALVAREZ v. GEORGE CHEVROLET, a California corporation; GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00590

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Omar Alvarez

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant General Motors LLC

SERVICE:                              Filed October 30, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed December 19, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed December 26, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

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

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff’s lemon law claim for a 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Vehicle Identification Number 3GCUYHEL6LG442065 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff filed this complaint on August 18, 2022.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition and 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).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves 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.

Plaintiff provides he served a notice of deposition on September 19, 2023, with a deposition scheduled for October 18, 2023. (Thomas Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiff provides that Defendant failed to appear for the deposition. (Id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to adequately respond to his meet and confer efforts. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10.) In opposition, Defendant provides it agreed to produce the witness as to certain topics, but Plaintiff failed to work to set a mutually agreeable time. (Yaraghchian Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.)

            The parties clearly disagree as to the scope of discovery in the present case. However, instead of seeking to meet and confer to resolve these issues, the parties merely contend that the other side failed to properly meet and confer. “Civil 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.) Plaintiff’s motion to compel the attendance of Defendant’s PMQ is denied. 

Further, Plaintiff’s request to compel deposition testimony as to specific topics and his motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents is denied.  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 “basis for compelling production” next to each discovery request, Plaintiff merely includes stock language claiming that Defendant’s objections are meritless and boilerplate with no reference to the specific discovery requests or the discovery already produced.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions are denied.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition and the production of documents is DENIED.

            Moving party to provide notice.

Dated:   January 3, 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