Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV02004, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02004    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: I

The motion will be CONTINUED.  This is a motion to compel the deposition of defendant’s PMK.  Plaintiff contends that it sent out a deposition notice.  Although the notice had a unilaterally chosen date, plaintiff invited defendant to pick a different date.  Defendant objected to the date, but despite repeated requests has yet to provide a date for the deposition.  Plaintiff also seeks documents and a witness familiar with a particular defect. 

It is clear that the parties have utterly failed to have a meaningful meet and confer, not to mention the defects in plaintiff’s notice of motion and the untimely opposition.  Given that both parties are present today (in person or virtually), right now might be a good time for a voice to voice meet and confer.

For the parties’ aid, the court appends its standard Song-Beverly order.  The matter will be continued, but the parties will be well-advised to resolve this matter between them without court intervention.

Song-Beverly Discovery

These motions follow a pattern.  Plaintiff brings suit under the Song-Beverly Act, claiming that the client bought a vehicle, that the vehicle needed repair, and that after a reasonable number of attempts the defendant did not offer to buy back the vehicle.  Further, because the decision not to buy back the vehicle was improper (as defined in the statute) according to plaintiff, plaintiff seeks enhanced damages.  Defendant answers and denies the allegations.  Plaintiff sends out discovery concerning not only the vehicle in question, but more broadly seeking information about other vehicles.  The defendant usually provides whatever is sought as to the particular car in question, but otherwise objects on a raft of grounds.  The parties “meet and confer,” but generally they get nowhere because they have a fundamental difference of opinion as to how much discovery is appropriate.  Unfortunately, appellate authority on this question is not conclusive, although it tends to favor plaintiff to a point.

This court has reached the conclusion that a defendant generally has two choices: (1) it can successfully resist the discovery by stipulating that if plaintiff wins the case on the merits, enhanced damages are appropriate (thereby relieving plaintiff of the need to prove the factors that would give rise to such damages); or (2) it can provide the requested information to the extent it seeks information pertaining to the same make, model, year, and defect as the subject vehicle.  If, after that discovery has been produced, plaintiff seeks broader discovery, plaintiff will need to make an appropriate showing.  For example, plaintiff might demonstrate that if the defect is with the battery, the identical battery is used in other model years or other specific vehicle models.  Privileged documents may be withheld, but they must be logged.  Documents that truly disclose trade secrets must be produced but may be redacted to the extent of the trade secret and produced with a log.