Judge: Kristin S. Escalante , Case: 21STCV34801, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV34801 Hearing Date: June 20, 2023 Dept: 24
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion to Compel
Deposition Attendance of a Person Most Knowledgeable by Defendant American
Honda Motor Co. Inc.; Request for Sanctions
The
above-captioned matters are called for hearing.
The Court finds
that Defendant has failed to comply with the Court's standing order regarding
holding an Informal Discovery Conference prior to any motion to compel being
filed.
The Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance of a Person Most
Knowledgeable by Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc.; Request for Sanctions
ID: 164102367504 filed by Plaintiff Filberto Gomez Hernandez on 05/24/2023 is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part as set forth below. The request for sanctions is
DENIED
Defendant is ordered to produce a witness to testify as to
the topics indicated in this order no later than August 11, 2023.
Plaintiff Filberto Gomez Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) moves for
an order compelling Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”) to
produce a Person Most Qualified (“PMK”) and Custodian of Records for deposition
and for sanctions in the amount of $2,825.00. (Notice of Mtn., at p. 1) As set
out in the separate statement Plaintiff specifically seeks an order compelling
a PMK to testify about topics 43-49, 51-61, and 65-76. (Separate Statement.)
As background, in September 2021, Plaintiff filed his
complaint against Defendant. Two months later he filed the operative First
Amended Complaint alleging violations of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
and fraudulent inducement. As part of the amend, Plaintiff corrected the
complaint to include that the defect in his 2018 Odyssey (“subject vehicle”)
was to the 9-Speed Transmission. Plaintiff served a notice of PMK deposition on
March 7, 2023, for a deposition on March 24, 2023. (Thach Tran Declaration
[“Tran Decl.”], ¶8, Ex. D [“Deposition Notice”].) Defendant timely served
objections to the deposition on March 16, 2023. (Tran Decl., ¶9, Ex. E
[“Deposition Object.”].)
“If, after service of a
deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing
agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that
is a party under Section 2025.230, 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 . . . descripted in the depositions
notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the
deponent's attendance and testimony . . . .”¿ (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) With regard to depositions, on “motion by any person, the court in
a specific action may make such other orders as it deems appropriate.” (Rule of Court, Rule 3.1010 subd. (d).)
Defendant objected to every single category of topics and
refused to provide a witness for examination of any items. Plaintiff in turn,
specifically seeks an order compelling a PMK witness to testify about topics
43-49, 51-61, and 65-76. These topics broadly relate to the 9-Speed
Transmission in Plaintiff’s Subject Vehicle.
Defendant
argues the information sought is akin to an Apex deposition or class action
type of discovery and that Plaintiff lacks good cause for such information. Defendant
does not cite any case law supporting that the discovery sought requires a
higher showing and Defendant has not sought a protective order in connection
with the deposition notice. (Opp., at p. 4:01-03 [“The deficiencies with these
requests are more completely addressed in the Opposition to the Separate
Statement”]; Opp. Sept. Stmt., at pp. &:24-8:16 [stating Defendant’s
argument which appears to be identical for all requests].) Plaintiff, on the
other hand, argues the information sought is necessary to establish its
fraudulent concealment claim. Plaintiff argues his claim for fraudulent
inducement will rise or fall depending on the evidence regarding how Defendant
developed, tested, and investigated defects regarding the 9-Speed transmission.
Plaintiff argues “if Defendant knew the extent of the defect during its
manufacturing process, or that the development deviated from its original
plans, Defendant’s superior knowledge of the defect should have been disclosed
and taken into consideration when evaluating Plaintiff’s request for a
repurchase.” (Sept. Stmt., at pp. 2:24-7:22 [stating Plaintiff’s argument which
appears to be identical for all request].)
Generally, the court
finds the category of topics related to the 9-Speed Transmission appropriate
and relevant to Plaintiff’s cause of action for fraudulent concealment.
Nevertheless, some of the categories are either overbroad
or properly subject to Defendant’s objection that Plaintiff has failed to
“describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is
requested.” (See Code Civ. Proc., §2025.230.) Accordingly, the responses
to categories 43, 44 46, 58, 67, 70-76 are sufficiently stated. The responses
to categories 45, 47, 48, 49, 51-57, 59-61, 65, 66, 68, and 69 are
insufficient to preclude inquiry. Defendant is ordered to produce a PMK witness
or witnesses no later than August 11, 2023, on to testify as to these
categories, to the extent the information is non-privileged and not protected
by the attorney work product doctrine.
Moving party is directed to give notice.