Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01177, Date: 2024-02-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01177    Hearing Date: February 5, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      February 5, 2024                                             TRIAL DATE: June 25, 2024

CASE:                         JESSE BLACKBURN, an individual, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV01177

DISCOVERY MOTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Jesse Blackburn

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant General Motors, LLC

SERVICE:                              Filed October 27, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed January 23, 2024

REPLY:                                   Filed January 29, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff moves for an order compelling further responses to his discovery requests, to deem the truth of the matters asserted in his requests for admissions admitted, and to compel the deposition testimony of Defendant’s person most qualified.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff’s Jesse Blackburn’s (“Plaintiff”) lemon law claim for a 2021 Chevrolet Silverado, Vehicle Identification Number 1GCUYEET0MZ369193 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff filed this complaint on May 24, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses and deemed admitted are DENIED as moot.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition testimony of Defendant’s PMQ is GRANTED.

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

            Plaintiff request for sanction is granted for a total of $1,950.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Motion to Compel a Response and Deem Admitted

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.290, subd. (b).) The same applies to a party that fails to respond to a request for document production. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.300, subd. (b).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), provides that if a party fails to respond to a request for admission, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted”.

            Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony

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

            Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide responses to its discovery requests. Plaintiff provides that he served discovery requests, including interrogatories, requests for the production of documents, and requests for admissions on Defendant on July 14, 2023. (Melton Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff provides that Defendant served untimely and deficient responses on August 29, 2023. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff provides that the discovery responses were unverified. (Ibid.) In opposition, Defendant provides it served its verification to the discovery responses on January 23, 2024. (Major Decl. ¶ 7.)

            Defendant also argues that it should be granted relief from waiver because it served its verified responses, albeit belatedly. However, this issue is not before the court on a noticed motion. Additionally, because Defendant eventually served verified responses, Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses and his motion to deem admitted are denied as moot.

            Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant’s person most qualified to appear for deposition. Plaintiff provides that it served a notice of deposition on July 14, 2023, with a deposition date of August 22, 2023. (Melton Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff provides that no one from Defendant appeared at the deposition. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff provides his counsel spoke with Defendant’s counsel after the deposition but that Defendant counsel ultimately failed to provide dates for deposition. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.)

            Plaintiff has demonstrated that he served a notice of deposition, but Defendant failed to object or appear for the deposition. Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified is granted.

            Plaintiff also moves for an order compelling the production of documents sought as detailed by the deposition subpoena. However, California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345, subdivision (a)(5), requires a separate statement to accompany a motion to compel the production of documents at a deposition. Plaintiff has not submitted a separate statement, and therefore his motion to compel the production of documents at the deposition is denied.

            Sanctions

            Plaintiff seeks sanctions for each motion. Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions is granted at a rate of $550 for three hours worked, one hour for the motion to deem admitted and two hours for the motion to compel deposition testimony, plus $300 for the nonappearance cost of deposition for a total of $1,950.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses and deemed admitted are DENIED as moot.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition testimony of Defendant’s PMQ is GRANTED.

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

            Plaintiff request for sanction is granted for a total of $1,950.

            Moving Party to provide notice.

Dated:   February 5, 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