TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Sharouna Shamoulelian’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable and Production of Documents is DENIED.

Plaintiff Sharouna Shamoulelian to give notice. 

REASONING

Plaintiff Sharouna Shamoulelian (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court for an order (1) striking all of Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Defendant”)’s Matters of Examination objections and compelling Defendant to produce a Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) witness for all Matters of Examination requested in Plaintiff’s Notice of PMK Deposition; (2) striking all of Defendant’s Request for Production objections and compelling Defendant to produce all responsive documents requested in Plaintiff’s Notice of PMK Deposition; and (3) compelling the production of Defendant’s PMK and all responsive documents within 10 calendar days from entry of this Court’s order. Defendant opposes the motion on the ground that Defendant has served valid timely objections, provided alternative deposition dates, and Plaintiff has not failed to establish good cause to produce the requested documents.

The procedural history here is as follows: On March 3, 2025, Plaintiff served a Notice of Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable, which contained 34 Matters for Examination and 17 Requests for Production of Documents, and the deposition was noticed for March 24, 2025. (Mot., Serrano Decl. ¶ 16.) On March 19, 2025, Defendant served its objections and response to the notice. (Mot., Serrano Decl. ¶ 17.) On March 27, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet-and-confer letter to defense counsel regarding the PMK deposition, intending to seek alternative dates for the deposition, and Plaintiff states that Defendant did not adequately respond to the letter and failed to provide alternative dates for the PMK deposition. (Mot., Serrano Decl. ¶¶ 18, 20.)

First, there is no basis to conclude that Defendant is obstructing Plaintiff’s right to depose the PMK, as Defendant represents that the PMK is available on August 7, 2025 or August 12, 2025, and Defendant offered these dates to Plaintiff, but Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to that communication. (Opp’n, Narain Decl. ¶ 14.) It follows that Defendant’s failure to appear for deposition on March 24, 2025, appears to be the result of the PMK’s limited availability for a deposition. Second, despite the notice of deposition, there is no evidence that the deposition went forward and that a notice of nonappearance was taken on the noticed deposition date. The Court finds there is no basis to grant Plaintiff’s motion where the deponent has not, in fact, failed to appear, as Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 specifically states that a motion may be made after failure to appear for examination or produce requested documents without having served a valid objection. The Court will not issue an advisory ruling on the matters and requested documents identified in Plaintiff’s deposition notices. (See Stonehouse Homes LLC v. City of Sierra Madre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531, 542 [“Courts may not render advisory opinions on disputes which the parties anticipate might arise but which do not presently exist”].) Accordingly, Plaintiff Sharouna Shamoulelian’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable and Production of Documents is DENIED.