Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV01644, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01644, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01644 Hearing Date: January 17, 2025 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 1/17/25 TRIAL DATE: 5/19/25

Case #23CHCV01644

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PMQ

Motion filed on 12/9/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Miriam Avila Saucedo

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.’s Person Most Qualified (PMQ) to appear and testify at their properly noticed deposition and to produce documents at deposition as specified in the deposition notice served on 7/25/24, which was scheduled for 8/23/24 at 10:00 a.m. via Zoom video conference. Additionally, Plaintiff requests an order awarding Plaintiff sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $1,000.00.

RULING: The motion is granted as set forth below.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of Plaintiff Miriam Avila Saucedo’s (Plaintiff) purchase of a Certified Pre-Owned 2020 Nissan Altima (the Vehicle) on or about 5/1/21. With the purchase of the Vehicle, Plaintiff received written and other express and implied warranties, including warranties from Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (Defendant).

Since the purchase of the Vehicle Plaintiff has presented it to Defendant and its authorized repair facilities on numerous occasions for various problems resulting in the Vehicle being out of service for what Plaintiff deems to be an unreasonable number of days.

On 6/7/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for breach of implied and express warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. On 7/25/24, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified for 8/23/24. (Wisniewski Decl., Ex.A). On 8/16/24, Defendant objected to the notice. (Id., Ex.B). On 8/16/24, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter regarding scheduling the deposition and requesting dates for the deposition. (Id., Ex.C). Defendant failed to respond. (Wisniewski Decl.).

On 10/22/24, Plaintiff sent a follow-up email. (Wisniewski Decl., Ex.D). On 10/24/24, Defendant requested that Plaintiff be patient until the week of 11/4/24 when counsel would likely have buyback authority and dates of availability for the deposition. Id. Defendant never further responded regarding buyback authority or deposition dates. (Wisniewski Decl.).

On 12/9/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant’s Person Most Qualified (PMQ) to appear and testify at their properly noticed deposition and to produce documents at deposition as specified in the deposition notice served on 7/25/24, which was scheduled for 8/23/24 at 10:00 a.m. via Zoom video conference. Additionally, Plaintiff requests an order awarding Plaintiff sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $1,000.00. Defendant has opposed the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the opposition.

ANALYSIS

There is no dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to take the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ as the opposition indicates that it has offered to produce and witness on a mutually agreed upon date. The reply indicates that the parties have agreed on a deposition date of 2/28/25; however, no evidence of such agreement is provided (i.e., copies of the email communications, a declaration). (See Reply, p.2:27-28).

As such, the only remaining issue in dispute is sanctions against Defendant. Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the Court finds that Plaintiff adequately met and conferred before filing this motion and Defendant failed to offer deposition dates as promised. Therefore, Plaintiff justifiably filed and served the instant motion. Further, it appears that Defendant failed to offer a deposition date until the date a reply was due regarding this motion.

As such, sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $1,000.00 (1 hour to prepare motion + 1.5 hours to review opposition, prepare reply and appear multiplied by $400/hour) are warranted. CCP 2023.010(d), (i); CCP 2023.030(a); CCP 2025.450(g)(1).

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted. Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. is ordered to produce its Person(s) Most Qualified for deposition on a date agreed upon by the parties. If 2/28/25 has already been agreed upon, the deposition is ordered to proceed on that date. If not, counsel for the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a mutually agreeable date for the deposition to take place within the next 30 days and are ordered to inform the Court by 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 1/21/25, as to that date.

Sanctions are imposed on Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. and in favor of Miriam Avila Saucedo in the amount of $1,000.00. Sanctions are payable within 30 days.

The Court notes that in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4), Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to the Wisniewski declaration. Counsel for the parties are warned that failure to comply with this rule in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers can be re-filed in compliance, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.