Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV00691, Date: 2024-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00691    Hearing Date: March 28, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      March 28, 2024                                               TRIAL DATE: May 28, 2024

CASE:                         ANGEL MARTINEZ RAMIREZ & GERMAN ZEA v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV00691

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Angel Martinez Ramirez and German Zea

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant General Motors LLC

SERVICE:                              Filed December 19, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed March 15, 2024

REPLY:                                   Filed March 21, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiffs move for an order compelling Defendant to produce its person most qualified for deposition.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiffs lemon law claim for a 2019 Chevrolet Colorado with Vehicle Identification Number 1GCGTEEN4k1159124 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff filed this complaint on March 29, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified is GRANTED, in part.

            Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions 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.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs move for an order compelling the deposition testimony of Defendant’s person most qualified. Plaintiffs provide that on November 16, 2023, they served Defendant with a notice of deposition for its person most qualified for four matters for examination and six requests for the production of documents. (Thomas Decl. ¶ 3.) The deposition was noticed for December 14, 2023. (Id. ¶ 4.) On December 5, 2023, Defendant objected to Plaintiffs’ notice of deposition. (Id. ¶ 5.) On December 14, 2023, Plaintiff proceeded with the deposition but Defendant’s representatives did not appear. (Id. ¶ 8.)

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they served Defendant with a notice of deposition but Defendant refused to provide its witness for deposition. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel deposition is granted. However, the court declines to rule whether the deponent must answer questions related to specific categories.

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).)

            Because no deposition has occurred yet, an order on the specific categories are premature. Additionally, the court notes that although Plaintiffs filed a notice of withdrawal for their motion to compel further responses to their requests for the production of documents, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel deposition also seeks an order compelling the production of documents. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of documents in conjunction with the present motion is denied for failure to provide a separate statement in compliance with the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified is GRANTED, in part.  Deposition shall be conducted within 30 days’ notice of this order or other date stipulated by the parties.

            Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

Dated:   March 28, 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