Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV01357, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CHCV01357 Hearing Date: December 1, 2023 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 12/1/23
TRIAL DATE: 10/14/24
Case #22CHCV01357
MOTION TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION
Motion filed on 7/5/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Marcos Frias Solis
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors LLC
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is granted as set forth
below.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of Plaintiff Marcos Frias Solis’
(Plaintiff) purchase of a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado (the Vehicle) on
6/2/19. Plaintiff contends he has
presented the Vehicle to Defendant General Motors LLC’s (Defendant) authorized
facilities on multiple occasions for repair of defects related to the brake
system malfunction, transmission, transmission control module, torque
converter, check engine light and other issues without success. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant has
refused to repurchase or repair the Vehicle.
On 12/12/22, Plaintiff filed this action against
Defendant for violation of the Song-Beverly Act. On 1/11/23, Plaintiff served Defendant with a
Notice of Deposition for Defendant’s Person Most Qualified (PMQ) on
2/6/23. (Brande Decl. ¶8, Ex.1). Without serving any objection to the
deposition notice, Defendant did not appear or produce a PMQ on 2/6/23. (Brande Decl. ¶9). On 2/7/23, Plaintiff sent meet and confer
correspondence regarding the deposition wherein Defendant’s counsel noted
Defendant’s failure to object and requested that Defendant provide potential
deposition dates within one week. (Brande
Decl. ¶10, Ex.2). The same day, Defendant
responded, offering three potential dates in August of 2023. (Brande Decl. ¶11, Ex.3). On 2/9/23, Plaintiff sent another meet and
confer correspondence indicating that he would not wait 6 months for the
deposition, the deposition needed to be completed within 3 months and
requesting dates within the next 7 days.
Id.
On 2/16/23, Plaintiff followed up on obtaining a
deposition date with Defendant providing dates in June and the parties
ultimately agreeing on 6/9/23. (Brande
Decl. ¶¶15-16, Ex.6, 7). On 2/28/23,
Plaintiff served Defendant with a First Amended Notice of Deposition. (Brande Decl. ¶17, Ex.8). On 6/8/23, Plaintiff wrote to Defendant to
confirm the 6/9/23 deposition. (Brande
Decl. ¶18, Ex.9). Defendant responded
indicating that it would not appear claiming the PMQ was not available. (Brande Decl. ¶19, Ex.10). On 6/14/23, Defendant served objections to
the First Amended Notice of Deposition.
(Brande Decl. ¶20, Ex.11).
On 6/15/23, Plaintiff called, left a voicemail and sent
correspondence to Defendant proposing the removal of the only contested
category of testimony and document requests regarding other lemon law buybacks
and proposing the parties use the LASC Model Stipulated Protective Order to
cover Defendant’s production of its lemon law policy and procedure manual. (Brande Decl. ¶21, Ex.12).
As of the filing of the motion, Defendant has not
provided additional dates for the deposition.
(Brande Decl. ¶26). Therefore, on
7/5/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order
compelling Defendant to produce its PMQ for deposition and to produce documents
within 30 days. Additionally, Plaintiff
requests sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,922.22 or any other
amount the Court deems just. Defendant
has opposed the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the opposition.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s objections (numbers 1-10) to the declaration
of Darshnik Meet Singh Brar are overruled.
A party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
privileged, that is relevant to the subject
matter involved in the action or to the determination of
any motion made in the action, if the
matter itself is admissible or appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. See CCP 2017.010. Doubts as to relevance are generally resolved
in favor of allowing discovery. Colonial
Life & Acc. Ins. Co. (1982) 31 C3d 785, 790.
Plaintiff properly noticed the deposition of Defendant’s
PMQ more than once. See CCP
2025.010-2025.230. The service of such
notice is effective to require the attendance at the deposition and production
of requested documents. CCP 2025.280(a). A party who fails to serve written objections
to a deposition notice at least three calendar days before the scheduled
deposition date waives any error or irregularity in the notice. CCP 2025.410(a).
Here, Defendant failed to appear at two properly noticed
depositions and failed to serve any objections regarding the original notice
and served late objections (after the deposition date) regarding the First
Amended Notice.
Defendant’s argument in opposition to the motion that
Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith before filing the motion
ignores the fact that Defendant failed to object to and/or appear at the
original, properly noticed PMQ deposition on 2/6/23. Similarly, Defendant ignores the fact that it
failed to appear at the 6/9/23 deposition after proposing and agreeing to that
date and not serving any objections until 6/14/23. The Court finds that Plaintiff adequately met
and conferred before filing and serving the instant motion.
Also, contrary to Defendant’s contention in the
opposition, its objections are not “valid” under CCP 2025.410 as the objections
were waived because they were not served at least three calendar days before
the deposition dates. (See
Opposition, p.4:18-22); CCP 2025.410(a).
As noted above, Defendant failed to serve any objections in response to
the original deposition notice and did not serve objections to the First
Amended Notice until after the deposition date.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff properly moved to
compel the deposition. See CCP
2025.450
Even if the objections had been timely served, Defendant
has failed to meet its burden of justifying the objections. See Fairmont Ins. Co. (2000) 22
C4th 245, 355; CCP 2035.480. The
categories of testimony are relevant to the subject matter of the action as
they relate to the Vehicle’s defects, warranty nonconformities and repair
history (Categories 2, 7). Questions
regarding Defendant’s procedure for determining whether the Vehicle qualified
for repurchase before this action was filed are relevant to Plaintiff’s civil
penalty claims (Categories 1, 3, 4, 6, 8).
Defendant has also failed to establish that the deposition notice
improperly seeks confidential and/or trade secret information, especially
considering Plaintiff’s offer to enter a protective order.
The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions
against Defendant for its failure to comply with its discovery obligations in
the amount of $2,922.22. CCP 2025.450(g)(1);
CCP 2025.480(j); (Brande Decl. ¶27).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to produce its PMQ for
deposition, to produce documents requested in the deposition notice and to pay
the ordered sanctions within the next 30 days.