Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

NICOLE DE LAS ALAS, et al,

Plaintiffs,

v.46777

general motors, llc, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23BBCV01018

Hearing Date: December 6, 2024

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel the deposition of the person most knowledgeable

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiffs Nicole de Las Alas and Humble Haven RCFE LLC (“Plaintiffs”) allege that they bought a 2021 Chevrolet Tahoe on September 20, 2021. The vehicle was delivered to them with serious defects and noncomformities to warranty, including electrical and engine system defects. On May 5, 2023, they sued General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) for the following causes of action: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty; (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty; and (3) violation of Song-Beverly Action section 1793.2

B. Motion on Calendar

On October 3, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the deposition of GM’s person most knowledgeable (“PMK”).

On November 21, 2024, GM filed an opposition brief.

On November 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move to compel the deposition of GM’s PMK and for the production of documents requested in the deposition notice.

Plaintiffs served the deposition notice of GM’s person most knowledgeable on October 5, 2023, setting the PMK’s deposition for November 2, 2023. (Decl. Yowarski, ¶ 17.) The deposition notice includes 34 topics of examination and 17 requests for production of documents (“RPD”). (See id.) On July 30, 2024, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter, which stated that it would serve as a written objection to all notices of deposition by Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Decl. Yowarski, ¶ 19, Ex. 4.) On July 31, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a responsive meet and confer letter about the scheduling of the depositions and stated that the parties had addressed the scope of examination. (Decl. Yowarski, ¶ 20, Ex. 5.) The parties further met and conferred at the beginning of August 2024. (Decl. Yowarski, ¶ 21, Ex. 6.)

The parties’ moving, opposition, and reply papers chiefly contend the scope of discovery regarding the documents requested for the deposition. For example, Defendant argues that the requests infringe on trade secrets. From reviewing the arguments, the Court finds that the parties did not sufficiently meet and confer on the scope of discovery. An attempt at informal resolution requires something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) The declaration shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) Here, the declarations do not reflect the parties discussed each issued presented in the motion. Plaintiffs’ July 31, 2024 responsive meet and confer letter starts the discussion about the scope of discovery, but Defendant does not continue it. (Decl. Yowarski, ¶¶ 20, 21, Ex. 5, 6.)

With respect to documents, the court will usually order that the plaintiff and defendant provide copies of the following documents, which are in their respective possession, custody, and/or control, to the opposing side:

Defendant shall produce the “Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual” published by Defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the period of [date of purchase] to the present. This should be limited to the manuals used to address the vehicle in this litigation.

Defendant shall produce any internal analysis or investigation regarding defects alleged in plaintiff’s complaint in vehicle for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle. This includes Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins. Defendant is not required to do a search of emails. This type of information should only be produced for a defect that can be specifically defined, and related to a specific customer concern during the repairs, or where there is an existing recall notice or technical service bulletin. Also, it should be limited to the Los Angeles area.

Defendant shall produce any customer complaints relating to defects alleged in plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle. Plaintiff should specifically define the defect, be able to relate it to a specific complaint that this driver made at a repair facility, and be limited, at least in a first round, to the Los Angeles area.

Defendant shall produce all documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for the period between the date of purchase and the present. This should be limited to those policies and procedures that were used or referred to in the consideration of the repurchase request for this particular automobile.

Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

Communications with dealer, factory representatives, and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle.

Warranty claims to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the subject vehicle.

Purchase and/or lease contract concerning the subject vehicle.

Repair order and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

Any documents supporting plaintiff’s claim for incidental and/or consequential damages.

Here it seems that the parties have indicated many more requests. It is also not clear whether the documents requested at the deposition are duplicative of other document requests. The Court generally believes that 35 non-duplicative requests are sufficient for a case of this nature. The parties should meet and confer in light of these guidelines prior to the deposition.

The Court also believes that requesting a PMK on 34 topics is patently excessive for a case of this nature.

The motion is granted under the following conditions:

1. The parties are to meet and confer at Defendant’s attorneys’ offices within 30 days of this order to attempt to agree on production of documents and topics of discovery within these parameters. Defendant’s law firm is to provide coffee. motion is granted.

2. A PMK deposition shall be scheduled within 60 days within the agreed parameters.

3. If items 1 and 2 do not result in the completion of the PMK deposition, the parties can bring further motions.

The Court declines to award sanctions.

///

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors LLC’s person most knowledgeable is granted in part and denied in part.

No sanctions shall be awarded on this motion.

Plaintiffs shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: December 6, 2024 ___________________________

John Kralik

Judge of the Superior Court