Judge Mark H. Epstein, Case Number: 23SMCV04459, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV04459, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04459 Hearing Date: May 31, 2024 Dept: I

The motion to compel is GRANTED. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2970, as against defendant, but not counsel. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

This is a Song-Beverly case in which fraud is also alleged. Plaintiff seeks the deposition of defendant’s person most knowledgeable and to have that person produce documents at the deposition. Defendant contends that it has provided a date for the deposition in November, and therefore the motion is moot.

The court does not agree that the motion is moot. Plaintiff sent the initial notice of deposition in November 2023. Defendant’s response that it never said it would not provide a witness rings hollow given that the deposition is a full year after the notice was served. The court has some sympathy for the notion that defendant is very busy, but defendant must do better than this. Defendant will provide, no later than Friday, June 7, 2024, 10 options that are no less than 3 weeks from today and not more than 60 days from today. Plaintiff may pick from among those dates. If defendant fails to provide the dates, plaintiff may set the date unilaterally within the time frame just stated. The court notes that defendant’s position would have been stronger had it attempted to make a showing of burden.

As for the production of documents, there is no opposition to the production or any separate statement disputing the propriety of the requests other than privilege. That said, the court does not see any real attempt to meet and confer on the document categories. The court would expect better efforts in the future.

For now, the documents requested, other than those withheld for privilege and for which there is a privilege log, will be produced 10 court days before the deposition date. All objections are waived other than privilege. If defendant truly believes that production is unduly burdensome, defendant may move for a protective order but will need to make a real showing based on evidence. The court notes that most of the requests go to the same make, model, year, and alleged defect, at least for the most part, which the court believes makes the requests proper. Thus, to the extent that defendant wanted to engage in a real discussion with plaintiff to limit further that train has left the station absent some truly unusual circumstances.