Judge Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case Number: 24SMCV05105, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case: 24SMCV05105, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV05105 Hearing Date: May 13, 2025 Dept: N

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Cristina Anderlini’s Motion for an Order Compelling the Depositions of the Person

Most Knowledgeable of General Motors, LLC to Appear and Testify At Its Deposition 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. Plaintiff Cristina Anderlini

shall limit the deposition to only those topics stated in Category Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 8, 13 to 26, 33,

34, and 37. In all other respects, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff Cristina Anderlini’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff Cristina Anderlini to give notice.

REASONING

Plaintiff Cristina Anderlini (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court for an order compelling Defendant

General Motors LLC (“Defendant”)’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) to appear for

deposition. Plaintiff represents that she served two notices of deposition, Defendant served

objections to both notices, and Defendant has failed to provide a date for the deposition. (Mot.,

Barahmand Decl. ¶¶ 2-7.) Defendant objects on the ground that it has offered its PMK for

deposition on the categories of the deposition notice that are pertinent to Plaintiff’s vehicle, but

Plaintiff has 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 Plaintiff’s action is limited

to the purported defects in her vehicle alone, as she has not brought an action alleging that all

2022 Cadillac Escalades contain the same defects as her vehicle. Moreover, 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, Plaintiff need only

show in this action that her vehicle should have been repurchased, but Defendant willingly failed

to do so. Plaintiff is not entitled to seek broad discovery as to Defendant’s practices and

communications as to defects in vehicles other than Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s vehicle. While Plaintiff argues 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 Plaintiff had not limited the deposition topics.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Cristina Anderlini’s Motion for an Order Compelling the Depositions of

the Person Most Knowledgeable of General Motors, LLC to Appear and Testify At Its

Deposition 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. Plaintiff

Cristina Anderlini shall limit the deposition to only those topics stated in Category Nos. 1 to 3, 5

to 8, 13 to 26, 33, 34, and 37. In all other respects, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Insofar as Plaintiff requested monetary sanctions in connection with the motion, that request is

DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion was only partially granted, specifically only as to what Defendant

had already promised, such that there is no proper basis for an award for sanctions.

Website by Triangulus