Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01666, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV01666 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: C
Matthew Luon, et al. vs
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
Case No.: 22NWCV01666
Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 @ 9:30
#3
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiffs Matthew Luon and Lisa Kim Luon’s
Motion to Compel Deposition and Production of Documents is GRANTED. Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable is
ordered to sit for Deposition within 45 days, absent an agreement by the
parties to a later date.
The request for sanctions is DENIED.
Plaintiff to give notice.
Plaintiffs Matthew Luon and Lisa Kim Luon (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) sue Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”) after leasing
a 2021 Honda Pilot, identified by VIN No.: 5FNYF5H22MB027020 (the “Subject
Vehicle”). Plaintiffs allege that nonconformities
in the Subject Vehicle substantially impaired its use, value, and safety, and Defendant’s
authorized service centers could not conform the Subject Vehicle to warranty
within a reasonable number of presentations in violation of the Song-Beverly
Warranty Act.
Plaintiffs move to compel the deposition of Defendant’s
Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) and the production of documents.
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
2025.410, subdivision (a), “[i]f, 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… 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… described in the
deposition notice.” Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410 provides that
objections may be made to a deposition subpoena on the grounds that there are
irregularities or errors in the process or form of the notice or
subpoena.
A motion made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
2024.450 must (1) set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the
production for inspection of any document and (2) be accompanied by a meet and
confer letter, “or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and
produce the documents described in the deposition notice,… by a declaration
stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the
nonappearance.”
On April 13, 2023, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of
Defendant’s PMK for May 3, 2023. (Castruita Decl., ¶ 4.) On April 27, 2023,
Defendant served an objection to Plaintiff’s notice of deposition on the
grounds that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer. (Id., ¶ 5.)
On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff served an amended notice of
deposition for May 30, 2023. (Id., ¶ 21; Ex. 7.) On May 27, 2023,
Defendant served an identical objection to Plaintiff’s amended notice of
deposition. (Id., ¶ 8.)
On June 5, 2023, Plaintiff served a second amended notice
of deposition for June 19, 2023. (Id., ¶ 9.) On June 14, 2023, Defendant
served an identical objection to Plaintiff’s second amended notice of
deposition. (Id., ¶ 10.)
On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff emailed Defendant for
available dates before February 1, 2024. (Id., ¶ 12, Ex. 8.) Not having
received a response, Plaintiff emailed Defendant on December 1, 2023 with three
proposed dates and requested a response. (Id., ¶ 14, Ex. 9.) According
to Plaintiff’s Counsel, no response was received as of December 14, 2023, the
date this motion was filed.
In Opposition to the motion, Defendant’s counsel states
that on December 8, 2023, she offered January 26, 2024, to Plaintiff’s counsel
to depose Defendant’s PMK in whatever case they chose. (Rein Decl., ¶ 12, Ex.
K.) On December 10, 2023, Defendant’s counsel offered the additional date of
January 11, 2024, to Plaintiff’s counsel for the deposition of Defendant’s PMK
in whatever case they chose. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel made no
subsequent attempts to meet and confer regarding the deposition of Defendant’s
PMK. (Id., ¶ 14.)
In Reply, Plaintiff’s counsel states that the parties have
agreed to depositions on July 22, 2024 and July 29, 2024.
Accordingly Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Deposition is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to produce its PMK for
deposition within 45 days, absent an agreement by the parties to a later
date.
Sanctions
CCP¿section¿2025.450(c)
provides, “(1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall
impose a monetary sanction . . . in favor of the party who noticed the
deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is
affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted
with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition
of the sanction unjust.”¿ (Id.,, § 2025.450(c).)¿
Plaintiffs have noticed
three depositions of Defendant’s PMK, and Defendant has objected to each one. With each objection, Defendant invited Plaintiffs
to meet and confer regarding dates.
While Plaintiffs correctly point out that there is no meet and confer
requirement before noticing a deposition, it is common knowledge that the
availability of PMKs for deposition is limited.
Therefore, it should be of no surprise to Plaintiffs when the practice
of unilaterally setting deposition dates, on just a few weeks’ notice, is met
with negative results. Defendant states
that it offered Plaintiffs’ law firm two deposition dates in January 2024 for
cases of their choosing, but it appears this case was not identified as one of
them. Under the circumstances here, no
sanctions are warranted.
Accordingly, the
request for sanctions is DENIED.
¿