Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01800, Date: 2024-10-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01800    Hearing Date: October 29, 2024    Dept: C

Ryan Manuel Macias vs General Motors, LLC

Case No.: 23NWCV01800

Hearing Date: October 29, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.

#4

Tentative Ruing

Plaintiff Ryan Manuel Macias’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant General Motors, LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable with Production of Documents is GRANTED.  Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable shall attend deposition within 30 days, absent agreement by the parties to extend the time period. 

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This is a lemon law action. On April 13, 2022, Plaintiff Ryan Manuel Macias (“Plaintiff”) purchased a new 2022 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (“Subject Vehicle”) from Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”). During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or developed numerous defects that Defendant’s authorized repair facility was unable to conform to warranty. Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act by failing to repair or repurchase the Subject Vehicle.

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) and for production of documents pursuant to CCP § 2025.450(a). 

No Opposition filed as of October 25, 2024.

Legal Standard

CCP § 2025.450(a) provides that “[i]f, 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.”

Discussion

On or about July 31, 2023, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Defendant’s PMK with production of documents. (Garcia Decl., ¶6, Ex. 1.) Included with this service was Plaintiff’s first meet and confer letter which advised that Plaintiff understands that the date was unilaterally selected, and that if Defendant was unavailable, to please provide alternate dates, and that Plaintiff was happy to accommodate Defendant. (Ibid.) The deposition notice sought discovery into the Vehicle’s repair history, Technical Service Bulletins and recalls applicable to the Vehicle, Defendant’s refusal to repurchase the Vehicle, Defendant’s policies and procedures for investigating and evaluating repurchase requests under the California Lemon Law, Defendant’s warranty policies and procedures, and information concerning the individuals involved with the investigation and/or subsequent denial to repurchase the Vehicle. (Ibid.)

On August 31, 2023, Defendant responded with objections and without providing alternate dates. (Garcia Decl., ¶7, Ex. 2.) Lengthy settlement discussions occurred, but progress was halting due to Defendant’s lack of responsiveness.  (Garcia Decl., ¶¶9-14.) On September 27, 2024, Plaintiff informed Defendant that, given the continued lack of response, they would proceed with litigation and requested a date for the PMK deposition by Wednesday, October 2, 2024. (Garcia Decl., ¶15, Ex. 3.) As of the date Plaintiff filed the instant motion (October 3, 2024) Defendant has not produced its witness for deposition. (Garcia Decl., ¶16.)

As previously noted, the motion is unopposed.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s PMK and Production of Documents is GRANTED.  Defendant’s PMK shall attend deposition within 30 days, absent agreement by the parties to extend the time period.