Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV02319, Date: 2024-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02319    Hearing Date: May 22, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      May 22, 2024                                      TRIAL DATE: None set

CASE:                         RUBEN YEPEZ v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV02319

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Ruben Yepez

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant General Motors LLC

SERVICE:                              Filed February 7, 2024

OPPOSITION:                       Filed May 9, 2024

REPLY:                                   Filed May 15, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

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

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiffs lemon law claim for a 2021 GMC Sierra, VIN 3GTP8CET8MG431358 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff filed this complaint on October 6, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s 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

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling the deposition testimony of Defendant’s person most qualified. Plaintiff provides that on November 13, 2023, he served Defendant with a notice of deposition for its person most qualified. (Hunt Decl. ¶6.) After service of objections and an attempt by Plaintiff to meet and confer that was never responded to, Plaintiff served an amended notice of deposition on December 6, 2023. (Id. at ¶¶7-9.) Again, after service of objections and attempts by Plaintiff to meet and confer that were unanswered, Plaintiff served another amended notice of deposition on December 21, 2023. (Id. at ¶¶10-14.) The deposition was noticed for January 19, 2024. (Id. ¶14, Exh. I.) GM failed to appear and failed to serve objections. (Ibid.) Plaintiff inquired about the missed deposition and has received no response. (Id. at ¶15, Exh. J.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated that he served Defendant with a notice of deposition and Defendant failed to appear or provide an explanation for the non-appearance. Plaintiff’s 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.

Plaintiff also requests the Court to compel production of the documents requested in the notice. The requests consist of the following:

1. WRITINGS which refer to, evidence or reflect service or repairs performed on the SUBJECT VEHICLE at any time, including, but not limited to, the warranty repair history, service request documents, work orders, repair orders, labor receipts, parts order forms, computer printouts, parts receipts and billing statements.

2. Any and all correspondence with any person, entity or organization other than YOUR attorney relating or referring in any way to Plaintiff or the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

3. Your California lemon law policy and procedure manual(s) used by your dealers or authorized customer service representatives.

4. YOUR Customer Relations file regarding Plaintiff or the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

5. WRITINGS provided to YOUR Customer Relations representatives, which refer, reflect or relate to rules, policies or procedures concerning the issuance of vehicle purchase refunds or replacements pursuant to the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

6. YOUR Technical Service Bulletin Index, and any TSB’s that relate to the WARRANTY NONCONFORMITY(S) alleged in this case.

7. Any recalls that apply to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

8. WRITINGS that YOU reviewed in determining not to repurchase or replace the SUBJECT VEHICLE prior to the date Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed.

9. YOUR lemon law policy and procedure manual.

10. A copy of any photographs or videos of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

As Defendant did not object to the last notice of deposition that included the request for production of documents, and Plaintiff has shown good cause for production, Defendant is to comply with the requests. To the extent that Defendant is relying on its prior objections and asserts the documents sought are confidential, Defendant may move for a protective order or submit a privilege log.

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are overruled as immaterial.

CONCLUSION

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

Defendant is to produce its person most qualified on a mutually agreeable date within 30 days of this order and produce responsive documents.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED as the motion is only granted in part.

            Moving Party to provide notice.

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