Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV03835, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV03835 Hearing Date: February 20, 2025 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 2/20/25
TRIAL DATE: 2/17/25
Case #23CHCV03835
MOTION TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST QUALIFIED
Motion filed on 9/5/24.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Leticia Flores Mendez
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors LLC
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is granted, in part, and
denied, in part.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of Plaintiff Leticia Flores
Mendez’s (Plaintiff) purchase of a 2022 Chevrolet Camaro (the Vehicle) which
was manufactured and warranted by Defendant General Motors LLC
(Defendant). Plaintiff contends that the
Vehicle has suffered from defects related to the Service Restraint System, the
air big warning light, the electrical system, and the Vehicle stalling. While the Vehicle has received warranty
repairs and replacements, Plaintiff contends the Vehicle has not been repaired
and should have been repurchased by Defendant.
On 12/18/23, Plaintiff filed this action against
Defendant for: (1) Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability, (2) Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (3)
Song-Beverly Act – Violation of Civil Code 1793.2(b) and (4) Song-Beverly Act –
Violation of Civil Code 1793.2(d)(2). On
1/18/24, Defendant answered the complaint.
On 2/14/24, Plaintiff served a Notice of Deposition for
Defendant’s Person Most Qualified setting the deposition for 3/22/24. (Velarde Decl. ¶3). On 3/14/24, Defendant served objections to
the deposition notice, refused to produce a witness on the deposition date, but
stated that it would provide alternative dates for the deposition. (Id. ¶4).
From 3/21/24 to 8/27/24, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to
meet and confer regarding the scheduling of the deposition; however, Defendant’s
counsel did not respond to those efforts.
(Id. ¶¶5-11). Therefore,
on 9/5/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order
compelling the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified and the
production of documents described in the deposition notice. Additionally, Plaintiff requests an order
imposing sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $3,229.15. Defendant has opposed the motion. Plaintiff has not filed a reply.
ANALYSIS
Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.450 provides, in
part:
“(a) If, after service of a
deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing
agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that
is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection
under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it,
or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information,
or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the
notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and
testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically
stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.
(b) A motion under subdivision (a)
shall comply with both of the following:
(1) The motion shall set forth
specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of
any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in
the deposition notice.
(2) The motion shall be accompanied
by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent
fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored
information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration
stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the
nonappearance.”
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 provides, in
relevant part:
“(a) Separate statement required
Except as provided in (b), any
motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a
request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a
separate statement include a motion:
. .
.
(4) To compel answers at a
deposition;
(5) To compel or to quash the
production of documents or tangible things at a deposition;
(b) Separate statement not required
A separate statement is not
required under the following circumstances:
(1) When no response has been
provided to the request for discovery.”
Although Defendant raised objections to all of the
Categories of discussion for the deposition, without waiving such objections, Defendant
agreed to produce a witness in response to Categories 1-3 and 5-7 (all
categories, except Category 4). (See
Velarde Decl., Ex.2). Additionally, the opposition indicates that
Defendant has produced documents in response to 20 of the 25 Requests for
Production included in the deposition notice.
There appears to be no dispute that Plaintiff is entitled
to take the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified with regard to all
but Category 3 in the deposition notice.
With regard to Defendant’s objections to the categories for discussion
and the production of documents at the deposition, Plaintiff has failed to provide
a separate statement as required. Since
Defendant responded to the deposition notice with objections, Plaintiff was
required to file a separate statement which included the contents set forth in
CRC 3.1345(c) (i.e., the text of the category/document request, the objections,
a statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling answers or
production).
CONCLUSION
Counsel for the parties are ordered to meet and confer by
5 p.m. on Monday, 2/24/25, regarding a mutually agreeable deposition date for
the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified, with the deposition to
take place within the next 30 days. To
the extent Plaintiff seeks and order striking, Defendant’s objections to the
deposition notice, the motion is denied.
As noted above, Plaintiff has failed to adequately address the
objections in a required separate statement.
If the parties cannot come to an agreement, Plaintiff may
apply ex parte for the court to set the deposition for a date selected by the
court.
Since the motion was not entirely successful, the court
finds that sanctions are not warranted.
CCP 2025.450(g)(1); CCP 2025.480(j)
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.
The Court notes that in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4), Plaintiff
has failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to the motion. 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 with the rule, papers
not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.