Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV29777, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29777    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further deposition of Defendant’s PMK is DENIED.

On 8/21/2021, Plaintiff Marcia Graciela Soto (Plaintiff) filed suit against American Honda Motor, Company (Defendant), alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

Now, Plaintiff moves to compel further deposition of Defendant’s PMK.

Discussion

            Plaintiff argues that an order compelling further deposition of Defendant’s PMK is necessary because Defendant refuses to produce a PMK witness that is competent to testify on all categories relating to the alleged electrical defects with the vehicle, and that such discovery “would provide insight into AHMC’s knowledge of the defects, [and] could help Plaintiff understand the circumstances behind the recurring symptoms, issues, or problems experienced with the Subject Vehicle, as well as Defendant’s knowledge or awareness of the defective nature of the Subject Vehicle and vehicles of the same make, model, and year.” (Motion 8: 9-13.) 

            However, in opposition, Defendant notes that this motion is untimely. Due to the trial date of 5/30/2023, the last day to hear discovery motions was 5/15/2023. (CCP § 2024.020(a).) Plaintiff never sought ex parte relief to advance the hearing of this motion, and has not set forth any reason why she was unable to do so. As such, Plaintiff has not set forth any justification for her failure to file this motion within a timely manner. 

As a result, the Court must deny this motion.

However, even if the Court were to consider the merits of the motion, the result would be the same. First, the Court is not persuaded Plaintiff adequately met-and-conferred as to deficiencies in the testimony already obtained from the last PMK deposition: 

Plaintiff claims to seek testimony related to categories 6-17 and 19-20 of the matters to be examined set forth in the Notice; however, the motion almost exclusively focuses on the information sought by categories 8-15, which pertains to technical information related to Plaintiff's alleged "ELECTRICAL DEFECT(S). Of note, Plaintiff never met and conferred with AHM demanding a further witness to testify regarding categories 6 and 7, directed to AHM's communications with Plaintiff and the nature, extent, and substance of correspondence between AHM and other persons or entities regarding the "ELECTRICAL DEFECTS Further, neither Plaintiff's meet and confer letter nor her motion present any information or argument regarding categories 16-17, directed to AHM's document retention policy and search for responsive documents in this matter, or categories 19-20, directed to advertising of vehicles of the same year, make, and model, as the Subject Vehicle.

(Defendant’s Opp. 11: 15-26.)

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff contends that Defendant has not provided adequate insight into the electrical defects, Defendant has already indicated to Plaintiff that it will produce an expert witness to testify as to the technical aspects of the electrical defects alleged. Defendant also noted that it does not produce PMK witnesses to speak about technical matters, leaving these subjects to expert witnesses with technical expertise. As such, the Court is not persuaded that good cause exists to further depose a PMK, given that this would entail questioning another non-expert witness about technical issues, and given that Plaintiff will have access to a witness, employed by Defendant, who has expertise to discuss matters related to the alleged electrical defects and investigation of the vehicle.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further deposition of Defendant’s PMK is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633