Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV32058, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32058    Hearing Date: September 21, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, consistent with the ruling set forth below.

On 8/30/2021, Plaintiff Ignacio Vega (Plaintiff) filed suit against General Motors (Defendant) alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Law.

            Now, Defendant moves to compel Defendant to produce a Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) deposition.

Discussion

            Plaintiff argues that Defendant should be ordered to produce a PMK for deposition and produce documents.

            In opposition, Defendant argues that it agreed over a year ago to produce a PMK to testify on most topics (Category Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10-12), and that the delay has been caused by Plaintiff’s refusal to agree to any narrowed scope.

            After review, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s request is overbroad. For example, Plaintiff asks Defendant to produce every single recall notice and TSB that may apply to vehicles of the same year, make and model as his vehicle, regardless of whether those notices or bulletins have been superseded or actually apply to the alleged defects of his vehicle.

            However, the Court also finds that Defendant advocates an overly narrow scope of topics. For example, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s requests concerning Defendant’s internal policies and procedures for consumers’ warranty claims and repurchase requests are totally irrelevant. As the Court made clear in its ruling granting Defendant’s motion for a protective order on 1/27/2022, it finds relevant any Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by Defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the date the subject vehicle was purchased to the present.
  

            The Court narrows Plaintiff’s requests as such:

-         Plaintiff’s requests for TSBs are limited to TSBs applicable to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as his vehicle which have not been superseded and which apply to the same alleged defects as Plaintiff’s vehicle.  

-         The documents Defendant has agreed to produce for Request No. 5 are sufficient.

To the extent that Defendant believes that trade secret, confidential, and proprietary information still fall within the scope of Plaintiff’s requests, the parties are urged to reach an agreement on a suitable protective order without the need for Court intervention.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part, denied in part. Given this conclusion, the Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  September    , 2022

   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) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.