Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV01580, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01580    Hearing Date: October 13, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Khanian v. General Motors LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV01580

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant GM’s PMK

HEARING DATE:   10/13/2023

Legal Standard

Service of a proper deposition notice obligates a party or “party-affiliated” witness (officer, director, managing agent or employee of party) to attend and testify, as well as produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying. (CCP § 2025.280(a).) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party deponent fails to appear, testify, or produce documents or tangible things for inspection without having served a valid objection under CCP § 2025.410, the deposing party may move for an order compelling attendance, testimony, and production. (CCP § 2025.450(a).) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, or, when a party deponent fails to attend the deposition, the motion must also be accompanied by a declaration stating that the moving party has contacted the party deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).)

A motion to compel production of documents described in a deposition notice must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(1).) In other words, the moving party must provide evidence (generally in the form of declarations) showing specific facts justifying inspection of the documents described in the notice. Courts liberally construe good cause in favor of discovery where facts show the documents are necessary for trial preparation.

The motion to compel must be “made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition.” (CCP § 2025.480(b).) This time limit also applies to motions based on a deposition subpoena for production of documents or a business records subpoena. The 60-day time limit runs from the date objections are served because the deposition record is then complete. (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1192.)

Analysis

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant General Motors (GM) to produce its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable (PMK).  GM represents that it agrees to produce its PMK on all categories in the deposition notices. GM contends that the only issue to determine is a mutually agreeable date and time for the deposition. The Court therefore orders the parties to meet and confer on a mutually agreeable date and time for the deposition.

Accordingly, the motion is CONTINUED to _________________.  The motion will be taken off calendar if the parties come to an agreement and the deposition moves forward. Given that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer with GM on this issue, the Court is not inclined to grant the requested sanctions.  The parties are ordered to inform the Court three days before the next hearing whether the matter can be taken off calendar.