Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 19NWCV00577 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 19NWCV00577, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19NWCV00577 Hearing Date: March 14, 2023 Dept: C

HERNANDEZ v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

CASE NO.: 19NWCV00577

HEARING: 3/14/23 @ 10:30 AM

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Hernandez’s motion to compel defendant’s person most qualified to answer further deposition questions is DENIED. No sanctions.

Opposing Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Emelin Hernandez moves to strike Defendant Kia’s objections and compel defendant to produce another truly qualified witness pursuant to CCP §§ 2025.410 and 2025.480.

Plaintiff alleges that she purchased a 2017 Kia Optima LX from Defendant. (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), ¶ 6.) After Plaintiff took possession of the vehicle, and during the warranty period, the vehicle developed defects, including a defective engine. (Id., ¶ 11.) Defendant violated the Song Beverly Act by failing to repair the vehicle after a reasonable number of opportunities, and knew of the engine defect yet failed to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle or failed to disclose the defect. (SAC, generally.) Based thereon, the SAC asserts causes of action for:

1. CC § 1793.2(d)

2. CC § 1793.2(b)

3. CC § 1793.2(a)(3)

4. Breach of Express Written Warranty - CC § 1791.2(a); CC § 1794

5. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability - CC § 1791.1; CC § 1794

6. Fraud by Omission

Initially, Defendant contends that the motion is untimely. “This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2025.480(b).) The motion was filed on November 14, 2022.

Kia’s second PMQ deposition was completed on July 20, 2022, and finalized on September 13, 2022. (Finley Decl., ¶ 5, Exs. B, C.) The 60^th day lands on Saturday, November 12, 2022. Pursuant to CRC 1.10(b) and CCP § 2016.060, the period of performance is extended to the next court day, which is November 14, 2022. The motion is timely.

“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.” (CCP § 2025.480(a).)

Plaintiff failed to show that Senior Escalated Case Administrator Taylor Bergerot was not competent as the PMQ. Bergerot already testified twice, and Plaintiff failed to show that Defendant is in possession of another, more qualified PMQ exists. The Code does not allow multiple PMQ depositions simply because the testimony sought is not satisfactory to Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. No sanctions to either party.