Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 22NWCV00791 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00791, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00791 Hearing Date: May 18, 2023 Dept: C

DELGADO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00791

HEARING: 05/18/23

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff CHRISTIAN DELGADO’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY’s PMK with Production of Documents is CONTINUED to Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C.

Moving Party to give Notice.

This lemon law action arising out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2018 Ford Mustang Vehicle was filed on September 1, 2022.

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY’s (“Defendant”) PMK, with production of documents.

“Pursuant to CCP §2025.450, if after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action, without having served a valid objection, fails to appear for examination, or proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document. (CCP §2025.450(a).)

On October 21, 2022, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Defendant’s PMK, with production of documents. The deposition was unilaterally set to occur on November 3, 2022. On November 3, 2022, Defendant served objections. After meeting and conferring, Defendant offered March 2, 2023 for the new deposition date. Plaintiff did not appear on March 2, 2023. This Motion was filed on April 10, 2023. As summarized by the Moving Party, Categories 1, 11, and 12 and Request Nos. 2, 7, and 8 seek testimony and documents concerning all repairs to the Subject Vehicle; Category 2-6 and Requests Nos. 3 and 4 concern all TSBs and recalls applicable to the Subject Vehicle; Categories 7-10 and Request Nos. 1, 5, and 6 seek information regarding all warranties that accompanied the Subject Vehicle, Defendant’s warranty policies and procedures, and the facts of both Defendant’s evaluation and Defendant’s refusal to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Upon review of Defendant’s Opposition, the Court notes that Defendant has agreed to producing its PMK. The main issue is whether Defendant should be ordered to produce all of the documents requested in the Notice of Deposition. Defendant maintains that many of the documents sought by Plaintiff have already been produced in other discovery responses and/or that the documents sought are overbroad, irrelevant, privileged, or are not in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control.

The Court is not persuaded that counsel have exhausted their meet and confer obligations pursuant to the Code. Counsel are advised that their meet and confer efforts should go beyond merely sending letters stating their respective positions. (See Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.) “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate…involves the exercise of discretion. The level of effort at an informal resolution which satisfies the ‘reasonable and good faith attempt’ standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger, more complex discovery request, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted. In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice. The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of the discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant. Judges have broad powers and responsibilities to determine what measures and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances.” (Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

Counsel are instructed to further meet and confer on the issues outlined in the parties’ Separate Statements.

Counsel are ORDERED to make further efforts to resolve the issues presented. If, after exhausting those efforts, court intervention is needed, counsel may appear and argue the merits on the continued hearing date. If counsel are unable to informally resolve their discovery disputes, then counsel are instructed to submit a JOINT STATEMENT outlining the remaining disputed issues for which a ruling is required. The joint statement must be FILED on or before July 10, 2023.