Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV01321, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling
Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).
Case Number: 22CHCV01321 Hearing Date: May 2, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 5/2/24
TRIAL DATE: 8/12/24
Case #22CHCV01321
MOTION TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION
Motion filed on 3/25/24.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Oliva Morena Posada aka Oliva M. Posada
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc.
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is granted as set forth below.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of Plaintiff Olivia Morena Posada
aka Olivia M. Posada’s (Plaintiff) lease of a 2022 Honda CR-V (the Vehicle) pursuant to
a “Closed-Ended Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement – California” (Lease Agreement). Plaintiff contends that the Vehicle is
defective and Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) has been unable
to service or repair the Vehicle to conform to the applicable express
warranties after a reasonable number of opportunities. Plaintiff further contends that despite the
foregoing, Honda has failed to promptly replace the Vehicle as required under
the Song-Beverly Act.
As a result, on 12/7/22, Plaintiff filed this action
against Honda for: (1) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express
Warranty and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied
Warranty. Honda filed an answer to the
complaint on 1/3/23.
On 12/14/23, Plaintiff served Honda with a Notice of
Deposition of Honda’s Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) of Record. (Tran Decl., Ex.A). Although the deposition was noticed for
1/25/24, Plaintiff requested that Honda’s counsel provide alternative dates by
1/4/24, if Honda or its counsel were not available on the noticed date. (Tran Decl., Ex.B). Honda did not serve any objections to the
deposition notice. (Tran Decl.).
On 1/24/24, Plaintiff sent Honda a video link to enable
Honda’s witness to participate in the deposition. (Tran Decl., Ex.B). Honda did not appear for the 1/25/24
deposition claiming that they had no record of receiving the notice. Id.
Thereafter, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to Honda offering an
additional 3 business days to provide dates for the deposition. Id.
Honda responded by indicating that it was reaching out for dates but did
not provide any alternative dates and ignored a follow-up email sent on 2/7/24. Id.
On 3/25/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion
seeking an order compelling Honda to produce a Person(s) Most Qualified and
Custodian of Records to be deposed in accordance with CCP 2025.230. Additionally, Plaintiff requests an order
imposing sanctions against Honda and its counsel of record, Clark Hill LLP in
the amount of $2,490.00. Honda has not
opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.
ANALYSIS
The undisputed evidences shows that Plaintiff timely
served Honda with a Notice of Deposition.
See CCP 2025.270(a); (Tran Decl., Ex.A). Additionally, the matters for examination in
the Notice of Deposition were reasonably particularized as required. CCP 2020.310; CCP 2025.230; (Tran Decl., Ex.A). Plaintiff has also shown the requisite good
cause for compelling the subject deposition as the information and documents
sought are not privileged and are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims under the
Song-Beverly Act. See CCP
2017.010; CCP 2025.450(b)(1); (Tran Decl., Ex.A). As noted above, Honda failed to serve any
objections to the deposition notice. As
such, Honda has waived any objections. CCP
2025.410(a). Further, Honda failed to
respond to Plaintiff’s last meet and confer effort before the motion was filed
and served. CCP 2025.450(b)(2).
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to an order
compelling Honda to produce its Person(s) Most Qualified and to produce
documents at deposition pursuant to the Notice of Deposition served on
12/14/23. CCP 2025.450(a).
Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of sanctions
against Honda and its counsel, Clark Hill LLP, in the amount of $1335.00 (2
hours to prepare motion + 1 hour to prepare for and attend the hearing at
$425/hour = $1275.00 + $60.00 filing fee) for their failure to comply with
their discovery obligations. CCP
2025.450(g)(1); (Tran Decl. ¶¶9-10).
CONCLUSION
The motion is granted.
Honda is ordered to produce is Person(s) Most Qualified and to produce
documents at deposition within the next 15 days. Sanctions are payable within the next 15
days.