Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00758, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00758    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      March 19, 2024                                               TRIAL DATE: June 25, 2024

CASE:                         ESTEPHANIE SANCHEZ v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00758

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

MOTION TO COMPEL VEHICLE INSPECTION

MOVING PARTY:               Motion to compel deposition filed by Plaintiff Estephanie Sanchez

                                                Motion to compel vehicle inspection filed by Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

SERVICE:                              Motion to compel deposition filed February 5, 2024

                                                 Motion to compel vehicle inspection filed February 5, 2024

OPPOSITION:                       Filed March 6, 2024

REPLY:                                   Filed March 12, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to produce its person most knowledgeable to appear for deposition.

            Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to present the Subject Vehicle for inspection.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Estephanie Sanchez’s (“Plaintiff”) lemon law claim for a 2022 Honda Odyssey, Vehicle Identification Number 5FNRL6H81NB058994 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff filed her complaint on September 30, 2022.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her requests for the production of documents is DENIED.

            Defendant’s motion to compel inspection of Defendant’s vehicle is DENIED.

            All requests for sanctions are denied.

            The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith regarding possible dates for the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified and for resolution of Defendant’s request to inspect Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff provides on December 22, 2023, she served a notice of deposition for Defendant’s person most qualified. (Tran Decl. ¶ 3.) The deposition date was scheduled for January 10, 2024. (Id. ¶ 4.) Defendant objected to the deposition on January 4, 2024, and Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter on January 9, 2024. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.) Plaintiff provides Defendant did not produce its witness on January 10, 2024. (Id. ¶ 8.) In opposition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to meet and confer regarding a date for deposition. Defendant appears to agree to produce a witness, but the parties have been unable to find a mutually agreeable date.

            Because Plaintiff had served a deposition notice that Defendant did not appear for, Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition is granted. However, the court declines to set a deadline for the hearing and the parties are ordered to meet and confer to find a mutually agreeable date and time.

Additionally, the court declines to decide whether Defendant’s witness must testify as to specific topics. “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. Section 2025.480.) The deposition has not occurred in the present case so a ruling on the specific topics of inquiry is premature.

Further, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to its requests for the 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”.  Plaintiff’s separate statement only contain various iterations of copy-pasted language that fail to address the specific discovery requests at issue. In fact, Plaintiff’s separate statement’s sections pertaining to the production of documents contain sections that provide a reason for “for compelling testimony”. Plaintiff’s separate statement is deficient.

Defendant moves for an order compelling the inspection of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant provides that it served a notice of inspection on January 16, 2024. (Hancox Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant provides Defendant objected to the inspection on January 29, 2024. Additionally, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 provides that a separate statement is required when a party seeks to “to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things”. However, Defendant has not provided a separate statement. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer to amicably come to a resolution regarding the pending discovery issues.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her requests for the production of documents is DENIED.

            Defendant’s motion to compel inspection of Defendant’s vehicle is DENIED.

            All requests for sanctions are denied.

            The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith regarding possible dates for the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified and for resolution of Defendant’s request to inspect Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Dated:   March 19, 2023                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court