Judge Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case Number: 22SMCV01528, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case: 22SMCV01528, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01528 Hearing Date: September 8, 2023 Dept: N

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Sean Towns and Kesia Carter’s Motion to Compel Defendant General Motors, LLC to Produce Its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable for Deposition and for Sanctions of $2,700 Against Defendant and Defendant’s Counsel is GRANTED in part. Defendant General Motors LLC shall make its Person Most Knowledgeable available for deposition within thirty (30) days of entry of this order. Plaintiffs shall limit the deposition to only those topics stated in Category Nos. 1 to 5, 9, 14, and 16. In all other respects, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

Plaintiffs Sean Towns and Kesia Carter to give notice.

REASONING

Plaintiffs Sean Towns and Kesia Carter (“Plaintiffs”) move the Court for an order compelling Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”)’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) to appears for deposition. Plaintiffs represent that they served a notice of deposition, Defendant served an objection to the notice, Defendant refused to provide a time for the deposition, Plaintiffs served a second deposition notice, Defendant served an objection to the second notice, Plaintiffs served a third deposition notice, Defendant served an objection to the third notice, and Defendant has refused to provide a date for the deposition. (Mot., Hashemi Decl. ¶¶ 4-10.) Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions of $2,700 or Defendant’s failure to produce its PMK for deposition. Defendant objects on the ground that it has responded to all of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, and Defendant has offered its PMK for deposition on the categories of the deposition notice that are pertinent to Plaintiffs’ vehicle, specifically communications, recalls, and technical service bulletins relating to Plaintiffs’ vehicle and its reasons for not repurchasing Plaintiffs’ vehicle, but Plaintiffs have demanded deposition testimony on categories concerning information that goes beyond the scope of this simple breach of warranty matter.

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) An oral deposition of a party may be taken after service of a deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.210, 2025.220.) “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, subd. (a).) The motion “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice” and “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (b)(2).) Where the deposition subpoena requires a witness to appear for the taking of a deposition, the Court may make an order directing compliance with the subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

“A plaintiff pursuing an action under the Song-Beverly Act has the burden to prove the following elements: (1) the product had a defect or nonconformity covered by the express warranty; (2) the product was presented to an authorized representative of the manufacturer for repair; and (3) the manufacturer or its representative did not repair the defect or nonconformity after a reasonable number of repair attempts.” (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 798-799.) It follows that Plaintiffs’ action is limited to the purported defects in their vehicle alone, as they have not brought an action alleging that all 2022 2021 Chevrolet Camaros contain the same defects as their vehicle.

Put simply, Plaintiff seeks discovery in this action relating to Defendant’s procedures in general or defects from any General Motors vehicles, and there is no basis to order such extensive discovery. Notably, Defendant has agreed to produce its PMK for deposition as to the specific topics in the deposition notice which relate to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. While Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has not provided a time and place for the deposition as to those topics, it is clear that Defendant declined to do so because Plaintiffs had not limited the deposition topics.

Civil Code section 1794, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1), bases civil penalties on the damages a consumer sustains by reason of a manufacturer’s failure to comply with a warranty or a provision of the Song-Beverly Act with respect to the consumer’s vehicle. Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (c), authorizes the award of a civil penalty where Defendant’s conduct was willful. Thus, Plaintiffs need only show in this action that their vehicle should have been repurchased, but Defendant willingly failed to do so. Plaintiffs are not entitled to seek broad discovery as to Defendant’s practices and communications as to defects in vehicles other than Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs Sean Towns and Kesia Carter’s Motion to Compel Defendant General Motors, LLC to Produce Its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable for Deposition and for Sanctions of $2,700 Against Defendant and Defendant’s Counsel is GRANTED in part. Defendant General Motors LLC shall make its Person Most Knowledgeable available for deposition within thirty (30) days of entry of this order. Plaintiffs shall limit the deposition to only those topics stated in Category Nos. 1 to 5, 9, 14, and 16. In all other respects, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.