Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 22STCV11224, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV11224 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing
date: July 18, 2024
Moving
Party: Plaintiffs Jose Iniguez and
Maribel Estrada
Responding
Party: Defendant American Honda Motor
Co., Inc.
Motion
to Compel Defendant to Attend PMK Deposition and Request for Sanctions
The Court
considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
The
motion is granted and the parties are ordered to meet and confer to come to an
agreement as to an acceptable date for deposition, the week of August 19, 2024. Sanctions are granted.
Plaintiffs
Iniguez and Estrada (collectively “Plaintiffs”) request the Court compel the
Deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) for Defendant American
Honda Motor (“AHCM”), according to the Notice of Deposition of AHMC’s PMK
served on Defendant on January 24, 2024. The instant case concerns a lemon-law
action, filed on April 1, 2022.
On January 24,
2024, Plaintiffs served Defendant AHMC with a Notice of Deposition of AHMC’s
Person Most Knowledgeable and Custodian(s) of Records; Request for Production
of Documents. (Amended Lupinek Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs identified with
reasonable particularity twenty-five (25) separate categories of inquiry and
seventeen (17) itemized requests for documents. (Id.) The Notice set
February 21, 2024 at 1:00 PM as the date for Defendant’s PMK to testify. (Id.)
On January 31, 2024, Plaintiffs followed
up with Defendant regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition and requested that
deposition dates be produced by February 7, 2024, in case Defendant’s PMK was
not available the date previously scheduled. (Amended Lupinek Decl., ¶ 4, Ex.
B.)
On February 16,
2024, Defendant served its objections to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition.
(Opposition (“Opp.”), Hancox Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. C.) That same day, Plaintiffs
further sought to meet and confer by sending a written letter regarding
Defendants’ objections. (Amended Lupinek Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. D.)
On February 21,
2024, Plaintiffs’ Counsel reached out via email and requested alternative dates
and in order to preserve Plaintiffs’ rights, proceeded to appear for the
scheduled and noticed PMK deposition at 1:00 PM on the zoom link. (Id.
at ¶ 7, Ex. B.) Defendant failed to appear. (Id.)
On February 27,
Plaintiffs offered three (3) additional days for Defendant’s Counsel to provide
dates for the PMK deposition and reminded Defendant they already had been given
thirty-four (34) days to provide the requested dates of availability. (Id.
at ¶ 8, Ex. B.)
On March 1,
2024, Plaintiffs followed up on their request for deposition dates but to no
avail. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-9.) Thus, no deposition date has been agreed upon.
Thus, on April
17, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance
and Request Sanctions. Plaintiffs request sanctions in the amount of $3,195
which consists of $60.00 filing fee; five (5) hours of work at the rate of $450
(including anticipating two (2) hours
for reviewing Defendant’s opposition and drafting a reply and another two (2)
attending a hearing); and three (3) hours of work drafting the moving papers at
an hourly rate of $295.00.
Defendant AHMC
filed its Opposition on July 5, 2024, stating that given the volume of cases
between Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s firm and Defense Counsel’s firm, there are close
to ninety (90) cases on the trial calendar this year which has resulted in a
limited number of witnesses available to testify. (Opp., pg. 4.) Defense
Counsel states that though it is aware that Plaintiffs’ counsel is entitled to
interrogate a defense witness in the instant matter, Plaintiffs’ counsel is
also aware Defendant AHMC’s processes and procedures whereby testimony can be
grouped in a singular deposition in an attempt to streamline testimony. (Id.)
This allows both parties to prepare for trial. (Id.) Thus, Plaintiffs’
counsel chooses to resort to unnecessary discovery battles to seek sanctions. (Id.)
Plaintiffs
filed their Reply on July 11, 2024.
The Court finds
that Defendant AHMC provides no evidence of it engaging in any meet and confer
efforts with Plaintiffs’ Counsel. There are several exhibits evidencing
Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s emails requesting Defense Counsel suggest dates of its
PMK’s availability to which Defense Counsel provides no response. While the
Court does not doubt AHMC is defending itself against numerous lawsuits and
could benefit from grouping together depositions, Defendant does not
demonstrate it has either attempted to communicate this desire to Plaintiffs or
that, alternatively, Defendant suggested any dates of availability to
Plaintiffs. Defendant has only provided an exhibit of the objections AHMC
served Plaintiffs on February 16, 2024. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiffs were
justified in bringing the instant Motion to Compel and orders the parties to
further meet and confer to schedule the deposition of Defendant’s PMK.
The Court orders
Defendant to produce its PMK for the week of August 19, 2024, or,
alternatively, to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel to identify a
mutually agreeable and alternate date for deposition. If Defendant wishes to
discuss with Plaintiffs the possibility of grouping together depositions, the
Court suggests Defendant do so during the meet and confer process. The volume
of lawsuits AHMC is defending itself against does not excuse Defendant from
participating in the discovery process and it certainly does not excuse
Defendant from engaging in meaningful meet and confer efforts to schedule a
deposition. Defendant’s lack of response is not excused by other said lawsuits.
As the instant
motion was necessary to compel Defendant’s cooperation in the present discovery
process, the Court awards Plaintiffs sanctions, in the requested amount of
$3,195.00, to be paid by Defendant and Defendant’s Counsel, jointly and
severally.
It is so ordered.
Dated: July 18, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court