Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV11694, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11694    Hearing Date: March 11, 2025    Dept: 61

SALVADOR VARGAS ORTIZ vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

Tentative

Plaintiff Salvador Vargas Ortiz’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED in part, and Defendant is directed to produce its person most knowledgeable for deposition on May 19, 2025, pursuant to its February 8, 2024 objections. The motion is otherwise DENIED, including Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Analysis

I. MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

A party may make a motion compelling a witness’s deposition “after service of a deposition notice” if that witness “fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must include a meet-and-confer declaration and show good cause for the discovery sought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1), (2).)

Plaintiff Salvador Vargas Ortiz (Plaintiff) moves to compel the deposition of Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s (Defendant) person most knowledgeable on a variety of topics, and seeking the production of various categories of documents. The proposed categories of examination contained in Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Deposition, served on February 2, 2024, broadly include the factors and materials pertinent to Defendant’s decision on whether to buy back Plaintiff’s vehicle, the policies and procedures governing such a determination, the relationship between Defendant and any third-party entity responsible for making such a determination, and Defendant’s affirmative defenses. (Motion Exh. 4.) The document requests seek related materials, plus technical service bulletins applicable to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. (Ibid.) Plaintiff served a letter alongside the notice articulating reasons for seeking the categories of information requested and expressing openness to alternative dates of deposition. (Motion Exh. 6.)

Defendant served objections on February 8, 2024, along with a letter of its own. (Motion Exhs. 5, 7.) Defendant stated that it would not provide a witness for the following categories:

· Categories 1, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 31, regarding Plaintiff’s repurchase request, on grounds of privilege;

· Categories 2, 16, 17 19–20, regarding Defendant’s consumer buyback policies and procedures, on grounds of overbreadth;

· Categories No. 11 and 14, regarding Defendants’ investigations into “the cause of the complaints” or the cause of the problems complained of by Plaintiff” regarding the subject vehicle’

· Category 18, regarding “[a]ll documents . . . produced by Defendant in this litigation”’

· Categories 30, 32–34, regarding all of Defendant’s affirmative defenses, all pleadings filed by Defendant in this action, and all discovery responses offered by Defendant.

(Motion Exh. 5.) Defendant’s objections indicated that it would provide no documents to the following categories of document production:

· Request No. 6, seeking handwritten notes related to Plaintiff’s buyback request;

· Requests No. 10, 11, seeking documents reviewed by Defendant in assessing Plaintiff’s buyback request, on the grounds that Plaintiff had made no buyback request until after litigation had begun;

· Requests No. 12–15, regarding Defendant’s lemon law policies and procedures, on grounds of overbreadth;

· Request No. 16, seeking technical service bulletins applicable to the vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle, to which Defendant objected on grounds of overbreadth, and declared no such documents existed.

(Motion Exh. 6.) As to the other requests, Defendant offered statements of willingness to produce a witness at an agreeable date, or statements of compliance in whole or in part, or statements of inability to comply. (Motion Exh. 5.)

Plaintiff has not demonstrated entitlement to a ruling on Defendant’s objections or the scope of its responses, because Plaintiff failed to meet and confer prior to bringing the motion. No attempt by Plaintiff was made to address Defendant’s actual responses to the amended deposition notice, which consisted not merely of objections, but statements of compliance, in whole or in part, and statements of inability to comply pursuant to applicable statutory provisions. (Motion Exh. 5; See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, 2031.220.) Plaintiff’s sole substantive meet and confer correspondence was delivered before Defendant made any objections, and of course took no account of Defendant’s proposed scope of production, which at that point had not yet been delivered to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s correspondence thereafter took the form of requesting dates of deposition, to which Defendant did not respond. (Gopstein Decl. ¶¶ 19–21.) Even in the present motion, Plaintiff takes no note of when a response offers wholesale compliance, compliance in part, or non-compliance based on a lack of responsive documents.

Plaintiff is entitled only to an order directing that Defendant produce a witness as they have agreed. Defendant argues that the motion is moot because it provided May 19, 2025, as a potential date of deposition. (Geraghity Decl. ¶ 7.) Defendant pointedly does not say when they offered this date. Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that they received no response to their requests for dates sent in December 13 and 18, 2024, before this motion was filed. (Gopstein Decl. ¶¶ 19–21.) Plaintiff in reply claims that Defendant did not provide any date until after the motion was filed. (Reply at p. 3.) Given Defendant’s lack of response to Plaintiff’s prior requests for dates, it is likely that the date was provided only in response to the motion.

Accordingly, the motion to compel deposition is GRANTED in part, and Defendant is directed to produce its person most knowledgeable for deposition on May 19, 2025, pursuant to its February 8, 2024 objections. The motion is otherwise DENIED, including Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.