Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01174, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01174    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      April 8, 2024                                       TRIAL DATE: July 16, 2024

CASE:                         CHRISTEL G. FRANCO, an individual, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV01774

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Christel G. Franco

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc.

SERVICE:                              Filed December 19, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed March 25, 2024

REPLY:                                   Filed March 28, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

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

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Christel G. Franco’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. breached an agreement to repurchase a 2023 Kia Sportage, Vehicle Identification Number 5XYK6CAF8PG024689 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff filed this complaint on May 23, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED.

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 moves for an order compelling Defendant to produce its person most qualified for deposition. Plaintiff provides that she served a notice of deposition on June 22, 2024, for a deposition date of July 24, 2023. (Sanjur-Van Brande Decl. ¶ 6, Exhibit A.) Plaintiff provides that on July 31, 2023, her counsel inquired about Defendant’s nonappearance. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff provides that on August 16, 2023, she served an amended notice of deposition for a deposition date set for September 6, 2023. (Id. ¶ 9, Exhibit C.) Plaintiff provides that Defendant objected on August 30, 2023. (Id. ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff has demonstrates she served a notice of deposition for Defendant’s person most qualified, but Defendant failed to produce a witness or appear for the deposition. Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition is granted.

Plaintiff also moves for an order compelling Defendant’s person most qualified to testify as to specific categories of inquiry and produce additional documents. 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).) However, because no deposition has occurred yet, the court declines to order specific categories of examination or the production of specific documents. Additionally, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions are granted due to Defendants lack of communication with the Plaintiffs that may have helped resolved these issues.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified is GRANTED.  Defendant is to produce PMQ within 60 days’ notice of this order or any other date stipulated by the parties.

            Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $750.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   April 8, 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