Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV00575, Date: 2024-10-02 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: 24CHCV00575 Hearing Date: October 2, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 10/2/24
Case #24CHCV00575
MOTION TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION
Motion filed on 8/28/24.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Farid Zahreddine and Caroline
Zahreddine
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors, LLC
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is denied.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of Plaintiffs Farid Zahreddine and
Caroline Zahreddine’s (Plaintiffs) purchase of a new 2021 Cadillac Escalade (the
Vehicle) on 1/21/22. The Vehicle was manufactured
and/or distributed by Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant). Plaintiffs allege that they have delivered
the Vehicle to Defendant’s authorized service and repair facilities, agents
and/or dealers on at least seven occasions.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant or its representatives failed to
conform the Vehicle to the warranties which accompanied the Vehicle upon
purchase.
On 2/23/24, Plaintiffs filed this action against
Defendant for: (1) Breach of Express Warranty Obligations Under the Song
Beverly Warranty Act; (2) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Under
the Song-Beverly Warranty Act; (3) Breach of Express Warranty Under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act; and (4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. On 4/3/24,
Defendant answered the complaint.
On 5/5/24, Plaintiffs sent a meet and confer letter to
Defendant indicating their intention to depose Defendant’s Person(s) Most
Knowledgeable and listing various categories for the deposition. (Imber Decl. ¶6, Ex.A). On 5/30/24, Defendant’s counsel responded
limiting the categories to which Defendant agreed and advising that Defendant
was willing to “work to schedule the deposition of GM’s PMK and avoid further
court intervention”. (Id. ¶7,
Ex.B). On 5/30/24, Plaintiff’s counsel responded
by email indicating that Defendant was attempting to limit Plaintiffs’ right
for discovery and inviting Defendant to participate in an IDC to attempt to
resolve the issue. (Id. ¶8,
Ex.C). Defendant did not respond. Id.
On 8/9/24, Plaintiffs served the Notice of Deposition of
Person Most Knowledgeable of Defendant and Request for Production of Documents
setting the deposition for 8/30/24. (Imber
Decl. ¶10, Ex.D). On 8/23/24, Defendant
served objections. (Id. ¶11,
Ex.E).
On 8/28/24, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant
motion seeking an order compelling Defendant to produce its Person(s) Most
Knowledgeable (PMK) to be deposed in accordance with CCP 2025.230. Additionally, Plaintiffs request that
Defendant produce the documents requested in the 8/9/24 deposition notice. Plaintiffs also request an order imposing
sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $6,463.26. Defendant has opposed the motion and
Plaintiffs have filed a reply to the opposition.
ANALYSIS
CCP 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.”
(emphasis added)
CRC 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”
Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they are
entitled to an order compelling the deposition and/or the production of
documents.
Plaintiffs have not shown that all of Defendant’s
objections to the deposition notice are invalid (i.e., the objection on the
ground that the deposition was unilaterally noticed). CCP 2025.450(a). With regard to Defendant’s other objections
to the categories and items to be produced in the deposition notice, Plaintiffs
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).
Additionally, Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer after the
scheduled deposition date. CCP
2024.450(b). Plaintiffs cite no
authority to support their argument that the meet and confer efforts prior to
noticing the deposition satisfy the requirements of CCP 2025.450(b) and/or which
justify filing and serving a motion to compel before the deposition date even
occurred (this motion was filed and served on 8/28/24, two days before the deposition
was scheduled to occur on 8/30/24).
Plaintiffs also cite CCP 2025.480(a) as a basis for this
motion. However, that code section
applies when a deponent appears and fails to answer questions and/or produce
documents as evidenced by subsections (b) and (c) which indicate that such a
motion must be made within 60 days after completion of the record and that notice
of the motion may be given orally at the deposition or subsequently in writing.
CONCLUSION
The motion is denied.