Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV05604, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05604    Hearing Date: April 19, 2024    Dept: M

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

CASE NO.:                23SMCV05604

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel the Deposition of GM’s PMQ

HEARING DATE:   4/18/2024

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 Colleen McCullough moves to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors LLC’s person most qualified (PMQ), with production of documents, and for sanctions in the amount of $2,970.00. 

This is a lemon law action, arising from the lease of a 2021 Chevrolet Bolt. Plaintiff alleges her Bolt has suffered from defects related to a fire risk, electrical, battery, and seatbelt pretensioner. As a result of these issues, Plaintiff delivered the vehicle to an authorized GM service and repair facility on numerous occasions, but GM failed to fix the issues and refused to repurchase the vehicle.

Following several notices and meet and confer efforts, on February 15, 2024, Plaintiff served her Second Amended Notice of Deposition. (Kaufman Decl., ¶ 12, Ex.7.) The Second Amended Notice withdrew a contested category/document request regarding other similar vehicle buybacks. On February 20, 2024, GM again served its boilerplate objections to the Notice. (Id., Ex. 8.) The deposition notice sought information on the following categories of questions:

1) Questions about why GM did not repurchase or replace the vehicle before this action

was filed;

2) Questions about why GM has yet to repurchase the vehicle;

3) Questions about the service and warranty history;

4) Questions about communications between GM and anyone else regarding the vehicle;

5) Questions regarding GM's lemon law policies and procedures;

6) Questions relating to GM's investigation into whether or not the vehicle qualified for

repurchase before this action was filed; and

7) Questions about the warranty nonconformities in the vehicle.

The notice also requested document production for the following categories:

1) Documents showing the repairs to the vehicle;

2) Documents evidencing correspondence relating to Plaintiff or the vehicle, excluding

attorney-client communication;

3) Copies of GM' s California lemon law policy and procedure manual used by GM' s

dealers and customer service representatives;

4) GM's customer service file pertaining to Plaintiff or the vehicle;

5) Writings provided to GM's customer service representatives that reflect or relate to

rules, policies and procedures concerning the issuance of refunds pursuant to

California's Song-Beverly Act;

6) Copies of the technical service bulletins that apply to the vehicle;

7) Copies of recall notices that apply to the vehicle;

8) Copies of the documents GM reviewed when it decided pre-litigation not to repurchase

the vehicle pursuant to the lemon law;

9) GM's lemon law policy and procedure manual; and

10) Copies of any photographs or videos GM has of the vehicle.

Plaintiff establishes that they served a valid Notice of Deposition on GM, and that GM refused to produce its PMQ. Furthermore, the objections to the notice are not valid objections under section 2025.410.

The Court finds good cause for these categories based on the issues put forth in the complaint. Each of the categories of testimony and document requests are discoverable, as they pertain to questions specific to the subject vehicle, its nonconformities, its warranties, GM’s actions regarding the vehicle, and GM’s policies related to repurchasing generally. These are all within the scope of permissible discovery in lemon law actions. Further, GM fails to justify their objections. GM does not show why the categories are overbroad, vague, irrelevant, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, or oppressive. GM also does not evidence their trade secrets claims. At best, they present a prefabricated, generic declaration concerning GM’s business generally. Notably, this 2018 declaration pre-dates the relevant records for the 2021 Bolt. Thus, this generic declaration does nothing to show trade secret materials in this action. To the extent that there are any trade secrets, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer on executing the standard protective order regarding confidential discovery.  

Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED. GM is ordered to produce its PMQ for deposition at a mutually agreeable time and location within 30 days. Plaintiff’s request sanctions is GRANTED. Sanctions are imposed against Defendant General Motors, LLC in the amount of $2,970.00 to be paid in 30 days.