Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00034464-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 14, 2024

03/15/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00034464-CU-BC-CTL VERDUSCO VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Monica Verdusco's motion to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors LLC's person most qualified is GRANTED in part.

Plaintiff's counsel attests that Defendant was properly served with an initial deposition notice on October 5, 2023 for a PMQ deposition set for November 1, 2023. Defendant did not serve objections to the notice, but counsel for Defendant (at that time) informed Plaintiff two days prior to the scheduled date that a witness would not be provided on the unilaterally set date, and that objections would be served.

However, no such objections were served, and Defendant ignored Plaintiff's subsequent efforts (via email) to meet and confer regarding a mutually agreeable deposition date. Having received no response or effort to confer regarding a date, Plaintiff filed the instant motion on November 30, 2023, 15 days after her final email.

In opposition to Plaintiff's motion, Defendant characterizes the initial failure to serve objections as inadvertence on the part of the attorney handling the case at that time, who Defendant's counsel attests is no longer with the Erskine Law Group. Defendant claims its failure to work with Plaintiff to find alternative deposition dates was a result of the former handling attorney's departure, as the new attorneys assigned to his cases 'are still familiarizing themselves with this matter.' (ROA #20, Valencia Dec., ¶ 8.) Defendant also disparages Plaintiff's counsel as engaging in bad faith discovery tactics; namely, by failing to do more than send (5) emails before filing her motion.

As it relates to the overall meet and confer efforts, the court is unpersuaded by Defendant's arguments.

Plaintiff's counsel rightly focused on scheduling a deposition date, and Defendant has failed to show that it made any effort to engage with Plaintiff on this core issue. A single sentence attestation from Defendant's counsel, that Defendant 'has served its objections as of the hearing on this matter, agreeing to produce its PMK on 27 of the 39 Categories of Examination,' (ROA #20, Valencia Dec., ¶ 9), falls short. Under the circumstances, the court would expect Defendant to provide details related to either the reasonable difficulties Defendant's counsel's firm faced following the filing of Plaintiff's motion (over three months ago) that prevented meeting and conferring on a deposition date, or to provide evidence of efforts to work with Plaintiff's counsel to agree to a deposition date. Defendant provided neither.

Moreover, the fact that Defendant dedicated most of its opposition (along with an unnecessary 50+ separate statement) to arguing that the document requests in the deposition notice, and some of the categories of examination, are overly broad and seek irrelevant information, strongly suggests an unwillingness to produce a PMQ witness at all until Plaintiff withdraws the requests or this court compels Defendant to produce a witness. But as Defendant and its counsel should know by now, the court's Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3059777  11 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  VERDUSCO VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00034464-CU-BC-CTL practice in this situation is to allow the deposition to first proceed, and if any issues remain following the deposition (i.e., refusal to answer certain questions or failure to produce documents not already possessed by Plaintiff), to address them at an IDC and if necessary, in connection with a new motion to compel.

Accordingly, the court will compel Defendant to produce a PMQ witness.

Given Defendant's failure to engage in the meet and confer process in good faith, sanctions are appropriate. Plaintiff requests $2,460 in sanctions for 4 hours of work at a rate of $595/hour plus a filing fee of $80. However, neither the hours expended nor the proposed rate are reasonable, and the purported filing fee lacks sufficient support. For a motion of this nature, including a review of Defendant's opposition, the filing of a reply, and appearing at the hearing, three hours is reasonable. And based on its own knowledge of the relevant market, the court believes a rate of $500/hour is more appropriate. As to the filing fee, it exceeds the $60 fee the court typically sees and awards on such motions. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for sanctions is granted in part, will be against both Defendant and its counsel of record, and will be $1,560 in total (3 hours of work at $500/hour plus a $60 filing fee).

Defendant's PMQ is ordered to sit for deposition no later than April 26, 2024.

Defendant and its counsel of record are ordered to pay sanctions of $1,560.00 to Plaintiff no later than March 29, 2024.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3059777  11