TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition is GRANTED. Within ten (10) days, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the deposition of Plaintiff Teresa Zarate Gomez and the production of documents identified in the deposition notice.

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Non-Party Daniel Morga’s Deposition is GRANTED. Within ten (10) days, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the deposition of nonparty Daniel Morga and the production of documents identified in the deposition notice.

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $3,200, payable by Plaintiff Teresa Zarate Gomez and Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition and Request for Sanctions

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”) moves to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Teresa Zarate Gomez (“Plaintiff”) and the production of documents at her deposition as specified in the Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of Plaintiff and Request for Production of Documents. (Mot., Rein Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. F.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff refused to reschedule the deposition after objecting to the date. (Mot., Rein Decl. ¶¶ 10-12.) Plaintiff opposes the motion by arguing that the motion is moot because Defendant accepted the originally offered dates for Plaintiff’s deposition. (Opp’n, Enav Decl. ¶ 16, Ex. 6.)

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) “If, 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, 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).)

In the reply, Plaintiff concedes that Plaintiff appeared for her deposition on October 22, 2024, but the prior dates had not been accepted, and even when appearing on October 22, 2024, Plaintiff failed to provide certain requested documents. The Court finds there is good cause to order a second deposition session of Plaintiff and production of documents identified in the amended notice of deposition. Plaintiff testified that she had certain documents within her possession, but she has failed to produce such documents, and defense counsel was unable to question Plaintiff about the topics in the documents. The Court orders Plaintiff to produce all responsive documents on the date of her second deposition session.

Accordingly, Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition is GRANTED. Within ten (10) days, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the deposition of Plaintiff Teresa Zarate Gomez and the production of documents identified in the deposition notice.

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Defendant requests $2,293 in monetary sanctions. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper here, but the Court reduces the requested amount to $1,600, which represents two hours preparing the motion, one hour preparing the reply, and one hour appearing at the hearing on the motion, at the rate of $385 per hour, plus one $60 motion filing fee. Accordingly, Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,600, payable by Plaintiff Teresa Zarate Gomez and Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Non-Party Daniel Morga’s Deposition.

Defendant moves to compel the deposition of nonparty Daniel Morga (“Morga”), identified in Plaintiff’s discovery responses as having information regarding the alleged issues with the subject vehicle, the sale of the vehicle, and the presentations of the vehicle to the dealer for repairs, and the production of documents at his deposition as specified in the Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things. (Mot., Rein Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. F.) Defendant again argues that Plaintiff refused to reschedule the deposition on a reasonable date after objecting to the noticed date. (Mot., Rein Decl. ¶¶ 6-9.) Plaintiff opposes the motion by again arguing that the motion is moot because Defendant accepted the originally offered dates for Morga’s deposition. (Opp’n, Enav Decl. ¶ 15, Ex. 3.)

Again, “[a]ny party may obtain discovery . . . by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) Where the witness whose deposition is sought is not a party, a subpoena must be served to compel his or her attendance, testimony, or production of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010, subd. (a).) If a nonparty disobeys a deposition subpoena, the subpoenaing party may seek a court order compelling the nonparty to comply with the subpoena within 60 days after completion of the deposition record. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subds. (a)-(b).) 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).)

In the reply, Plaintiff concedes that Morga appeared for deposition on October 24, 2024, he failed to answer several questions and failed to provide certain responsive documents. The Court finds there is good cause to order a second deposition session of Morga and production of documents identified in the notice of deposition. Morga failed to produce certain documents and failed to answer questions relating to certain topics, and defense counsel was unable to question Plaintiff about the topics in the documents. The Court orders Morga to produce all responsive documents on the date of his second deposition session.

Accordingly, Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Non-Party Daniel Morga’s Deposition is GRANTED. Within ten (10) days, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the deposition of nonparty Daniel Morga and the production of documents identified in the deposition notice.

Again, “[i]f 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Defendant again requests $2,293 in monetary sanctions. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper here, but the Court again reduces the requested amount to $1,600, which represents two hours preparing the motion, one hour preparing the reply, and one hour appearing at the hearing on the motion, at the rate of $385 per hour, plus one $60 motion filing fee. Accordingly, Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,600, payable by Plaintiff Teresa Zarate Gomez and Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.