Judge Kristin S. Escalante , Case Number: 22STCV05746, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kristin S. Escalante , Case: 22STCV05746, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 24 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Submission Instructions.

1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SMCDEPT24@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. You must cc all other parties on the email.

2. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, case name and number, date of hearing and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions

3. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a motion placed off-calendar and parties are ordered to cancel the reservation on CRS.

4. If all parties submit, the tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date. The moving party shall give notice of the final ruling.

5.Tentative rulings are not invitations or opportunities to file further documents relative to the hearing before the Court. Said document(s) will not be considered by the Court.

The Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance of Defendant's Person Most Knowledgeable, and Request for Sanctions ID: 995452829792 filed by Plaintiffs Yanali Cruz and Javier Ramirez on 04/14/2023 is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiffs Yanali Cruz and Javier Ramirez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) move for an order compelling Defendant Kia Motor Inc (“Defendant”) to produce its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230. (Notice of Mtn., at p. ii.) Plaintiffs also move for order for sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel in the amount of $2,272.50. (Notice of Mtn., at p. ii.)

By way of backgrounds, on February 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant for breach of warranty under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song Beverly”) in connection with their purchase of a 2017 Kia Forte (“subject vehicle’). Plaintiffs allege Defendant manufactured and warranted the subject vehicle that they purchased. The vehicle exhibits defects and non-conformities and Defendant failed to act in accordance with Song Beverly.

“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, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.450.)

Here, Defendant served a valid objection to the deposition notice. Plaintiffs served the PMK notice of deposition on January 23, 2023, for February 13, 2023. (Kamosko Decl, ¶2, Ex. 1.) On February 3, 2023, Defendant served objections. (Kamosko Decl, ¶3, Ex. 2.) In particular, Defendant objected to the unilaterally noticed deposition and advised Plaintiffs that the PMK would not appear at the deposition, but Defendant’s would coordinate further with Plaintiffs. (Kamosko Decl, ¶3, Ex. 2.) Consistent with its objections, on February 13, 2023, neither Defendant nor the PMK appeared for deposition. (Kamosko Decl, ¶5.) Only after the non-appearance did Plaintiffs send a meet and confer letter and a single email regarding alternative dates. (Kamosko Decl, ¶¶ 6,7) As of the filing of the motion Defendant had not provided any deposition dates for the PMK. (Kamosko Decl., ¶7). Plaintiff’s motion is premature given the limited evidence of Plaintiffs’ meet and confer regarding the deposition dates with Defendant. Additionally, Defendant argues in opposition that it has since provided dates to Plaintiff.