Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV44615, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44615    Hearing Date: April 13, 2023    Dept: 17

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 

DEPARTMENT 17 

Plaintiff’s MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE OF A PERSON MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS OF DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (“Motion”) is DENIED. The court declines to impose monetary sanctions.

            This is a lemon law case pertaining to the purchase of a Chevy Silverado.

On December 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants UAG OF CERRITOS I LLC dba PENSKE CHEVROLET OF CERRITOS (“Defendant Penkse”) and GENERAL MOTORS LLC (“Defendant GM”).

On December 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, moving for an order to compel Defendant GM to produce a Person(s) Most Qualified (“PMQ”) and Custodian of Records to be deposed.

Legal Standard 

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action … 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.”  (CCP § 2025.450, subd. (a).)  

The motion must be accompanied by a good faith meet and confer declaration under section 2016.040[1] or, “when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”  (CCP § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)   

Discussion

Plaintiff’s deposition notice identified twenty-six (26) matters for examination and seventeen (17) requests for document production.

In Opposition, the crux of Defendant GM’s position is that most of the topics and documents listed in the deposition notice are irrelevant or overbroad.

Here, the court agrees with Defendant GM that the discovery sought is not appropriately tailored. While there are matters for examination and production of documents that are relevant, Defendant GM has agreed to produce a PMQ witness to testify (e.g., records for all warranty claims, repairs, services, a list of technical service bulletins (“TSBs”), list of information service bulletins (“ISBs”), and requests for repurchase pertaining to the subject vehicle), such that those issues are arguably moot. Those topics and documents aside, a majority of the other topics and documents are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For example, aside from a boilerplate explanation, Plaintiff’s separate statement (nor reply) address the relevancy of “All training materials regarding the handling of consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase in California since 2020,” when the vehicle at issue is a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado. (Request for Production (“RFP”) No. 22.) On the same note about how the discovery seeks information exceeded the scope of the controversy at issue (i.e., as to this subject vehicle), Plaintiff has not explained the relevancy of RFP No. 16, which seeks “All of YOUR warranty claims policy and procedure manual(s) from 2020 to the present.” And even when the discovery seeks information pertaining to the subject vehicle such as RFP No. 37 which seeks “DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify all of YOUR OBDII codes for the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle,” Plaintiff has not explained how “OBDII codes” are relevant. Furthermore, and of significant import, Defendant GM explains that Plaintiff served 161 discovery requests on Defendant GM (46 Requests for Production, 27 Form Interrogatories, 49 Special Interrogatories, and 39 Requests for Admission) and Defendant GM responded to all 161 requests. (Opp. p. 2.) Plaintiff’s Reply is silent as to this argument.

Therefore, even if Defendant GM has not agreed to produce the PMQ nor documents for everything in the notice of deposition (particularly those pertaining Plaintiff’s recovery for civil penalties against Defendant GM for its alleged willful violation of the Song-Beverly Act), considering that much of the information has been produced and Plaintiff’s Reply is silent to the matter, the court denies the motion.

Dated: April     , 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) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.