Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV03530, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03530    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: 55

RECORD v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.                           22STCV03530

Hearing Date:  5/1/23,  Dept. 55.

#4:   MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF.

 

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

 

MP:  Defendant TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

RP:  

 

 

Summary

 

On 1/28/22, Plaintiff TYLER RECORD filed a Lemon Law Complaint, alleging that he purchased a 2019 Toyota Highlander, delivered with defects not timely or properly repaired.

 

 

MP Positions

 

Moving party requests an order compelling Plaintiff’s deposition, and imposing any monetary sanctions the Court deems proper, on grounds including the following:

 

·         Defendant noticed the deposition of Plaintiff to proceed on May 2, 2022 and March 6, 2023.

·         Plaintiff’s counsel objected to the notices and has refused to provide Plaintiff’s availability.

·         This was despite Defendant’s numerous attempts to meet and confer.

·         Defendant should be allowed to depose Plaintiff to determine, inter alia, the exact extent of the alleged nonconformities that form the basis of this action and the basis upon which Plaintiff claims those alleged nonconformities “substantially impair the use, value or safety of the vehicle.”

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The unopposed motion is granted, as prayed.

A motion lies to compel deposition attendance and document production, after service of a deposition notice, where a deponent fails to appear at, or proceed with, a deposition, without having served a valid objection.  CCP §2025.450(a).  No meet and confer is required to compel initial deposition attendance, but instead there must be a declaration showing that moving party inquired about the nonappearance.  CCP §2025.450(b)(2). 

Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice.  E.g.,  Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-58.  “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.”  Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.  “If the party seeking a monetary sanction meets its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the opposing party attempting to avoid a monetary sanction to show that it acted with ‘substantial justification.’ ”  Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1435.