Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV32198, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32198    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to compel further deposition is GRANTED.

On 8/31/2021, Plaintiff Israel Hernandez Galan aka Israel Alfonso Hernandez Galan and Edelba Romero Arellano aka Edelba Romero (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Ted Jones Ford, Inc. dba Ken Grody Ford Corporations and Ford Motor Company, alleging: (1) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty; (3) violation of Beverly Act section 1793.2; and (4) negligent repair.

            Now, Defendant moves to compel further depositions of Plaintiffs.

Discussion

            Defendant seeks to compel further deposition of Plaintiffs. Defendant contends that “Plaintiffs Israel Hernandez Galan and Edelba Romero Arellano were deposed on February 3, 2022. During these depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel instructed them not to answer defendant Ford’s questions on multiple occasions based on improper grounds, including irrelevance, “asked and answered,” “beyond the scope” of the depositions, and based on bad faith invocations of attorney client privilege. Plaintiffs’ counsel lodged one-hundred and twenty-five (125) length and improper objections over the course of the depositions, wrongfully impeding Ford’s ability to depose the Plaintiffs and gather facts in preparation for trial.” (Motion, 1: 22-28.)

            In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s motion is untimely and did not comply with meet-and-confer requirements.

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).) “This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (b),) but the parties can stipulate to extend this deadline. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.030.) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration “showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2025.480, subd. (b).)

            Here, Plaintiffs’ deposition was completed on 2/3/2022. The parties then stipulated to extend the motion to compel deadline several times. While Plaintiffs attempt to argue that Defendant’s motion is now untimely, the timeline they provide is murky, and Plaintiffs’ own narrative concerning this matter indicates a mutual, informal willingness to repeatedly extend the deadline. Given this uncertainty, and the lack of any meaningful prejudice that would result, the Court declines to find the motion untimely.

            The Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ counsel unreasonably impeded Defendant’s requests for relevant and discoverable information. For example, Ford’s Separate Statement sets out that Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 seek Plaintiffs’ knowledge and understanding of Ford’s prelitigation repurchase offer, their response to that offer, and the damages they claim to have suffered and remedies they seek to obtain in this lawsuit. Additionally, Questions 6, 7, 14, 15 and 16 relate to the timeline of Plaintiffs’ retention of counsel and whether Plaintiffs ever saw particular offers to compromise sent to Plaintiffs by Ford. Despite the clear relevant of these questions, Plaintiffs counsel attempted to block the Plaintiffs from providing any substantive response.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel further deposition is granted. Given that Plaintiffs previously improperly appeared for remote deposition via cellphone, and on at least one occasion Plaintiff was unable to see the exhibit shown to him, Plaintiffs are to submit to further in-person depositions and answer all appropriate questions.

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.