Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2023-00034373-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 28, 2024

03/29/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00034373-CU-BC-CTL REAL VS GENERAL MOTORS INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Maria Real's motion to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors LLC's (GM) person most qualified (PMQ) and production of documents is GRANTED.

PMQ Deposition 'If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . 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 produce for inspection any document . . . 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 . . . described in the deposition notice.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must show good cause for compelling the production of documents and be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration 'stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.'. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b).) Here, Real properly noticed the deposition of GM's PMQ for October 31, 2023. Despite not serving a valid objection, GM informed Real on October 30, 2023 that the deposition would not be going forward.

GM then ignored multiple follow-up emails requesting alternate dates for the deposition to occur. After a month of silence from GM, Real filed this motion based on a showing of good cause. The motion to compel is therefore granted.

Sanctions If the motion 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).) The facts leading up to this motion warrant sanctions. Not only did GM cancel the deposition at the last minute without having served a valid objection, it also ignored Real's multiple efforts to reschedule the deposition for another date. It was not until months later, when GM opposed this motion, that it agreed to produce a PMQ on certain topics, and even then only to a limited extent and subject to various objections. The fact GM was waiting on a settlement demand does not entitle it to ignore its discovery obligations.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3059878  42 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  REAL VS GENERAL MOTORS INC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00034373-CU-BC-CTL The opposition to the motion also warrants sanctions. The opposition appears to have been based on a template with little reference to the facts of this case. GM at times incorrectly refers to the subject vehicle as either an Acadia or a Tahoe, when the car at issue is an Escalade. GM argues that it should not be required to provide discovery 'concerning other consumers or their vehicles; GM's internal analysis and investigation of breach of warranty claims in general; the design of specific component systems or parts; or GM's internal analysis and investigation of the alleged 'defects' in other vehicles,' when no such discovery is at issue. The scope of the deposition notice is limited to the subject vehicle, and it does not encompass the design of specific systems or parts. GM also argues that the deposition notice seeks the production of trade secret material based on a declaration from Senior Manager/Senior Technical Consultant of Engineering Analysis Huizhen Lu. The Lu declaration purportedly describes 'certain factual matters' related to 'warranty litigation pending in the state of California' and the need for a protective order for certain categories of documents (e.g., 'specifications, test documents, test reports, engineering analysis and reports, compliance testing and evaluations', 'design and assembly information', 'product investigation and warranty materials', and 'meeting minutes'). The referenced documents are not encompassed within the deposition notice, and GM never filed a motion for a protective order. The Lu declaration is also dated October 2018-approximately three years before the subject vehicle was purchased and five years before this motion was filed.

GM's explanations are not persuasive. GM argues that it failed to timely object to the deposition notice 'out of inadvertence and mistake,' but there is no declaration from the then-handling attorney explaining the purported inadvertence and mistake. GM also argues that the 'Erskine Attorney who was handling this matter is no longer with the firm,' but there is no evidence as to when they left the firm and the emails requesting alternate dates did not generate any auto-reply or bounce-back. GM further argues that the matters the prior attorney handled 'are still getting reassigned and the new Erskine attorneys are still familiarizing themselves with this matter,' but that does not explain the outstanding issues raised in this motion.

GM has not shown it acted with substantial justification, nor has GM demonstrated that the imposition of sanctions would otherwise be unjust. The request for sanctions is therefore granted.

Conclusion GM shall produce a PMQ to testify on topics 1–52 and to produce documents responsive to requests 1–18. The deposition shall occur within 30 days, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.

GM is ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Real in the amount of $2,460 in sanctions (4 hours at $595/hr, plus an $80 filing fee).

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3059878  42