Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV06050, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06050    Hearing Date: April 18, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified

Moving Party: Plaintiff Maria Antonia Rodriguez

Resp. Party:    Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

The Motion to Compel Deposition is GRANTED. Defendant’s PMQ shall be made available within ten (10) days of the issuance of this Order.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

        The Court is concerned about the lack of professionalism shown in Defendant’s Opposition.  Defendant makes three arguments in its opposition; two of these are irrelevant.  Section III(A) of the argument is entitled “AHM US Has Already Complied in Full With Most Requests and Agreed to Produce The Responsive Documents.”  (Opposition, p. 2:22-23.)  However, Plaintiff has not moved to compel production of documents.  Section III(D) of the argument is entitled “Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is Not Warranted.”  (Opposition, p. 3:25.)  Again, Plaintiff has not requested sanctions.  (The Court also notes that the three arguments are labeled “A,” “B,” and “D”; a quick proofreading would have corrected this to “A, B and C.”

        Give the lack of professionalism of the Opposition, had Plaintiff requested sanctions, the Court would have been inclined to award sanctions.

BACKGROUND:

        On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. on causes of action arising from the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

        On May 9, 2023, Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint.

        On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified (“Motion to Compel Deposition”). In support of her Motion to Compel Deposition, Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Nadine Bedwan; and (2) Proposed Order.

        On April 10, 2024, Defendant filed its Opposition to the Motion.

        On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Reply in support of the Motion.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

“If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g).)

II.       Discussion

Plaintiff moves the Court to order the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified (“PMQ”) within ten calendar days. (Motion to Compel Deposition, p. 7:6–10.)

Plaintiff initially served the Notice of Deposition for the PMQ on January 16, 2024. (Decl. Bedwan, ¶ 16.) Defendant objected to the deposition on January 25, 2024. (Opposition, Exh. A.) The deposition has apparently not yet occurred.

Defendant opposes the Motion to Compel Deposition, arguing: (1) that Defendant has already complied with most requests and agreed to produce the responsive documents; (2) that Plaintiff has not established good cause for the motion; and (3) that Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is not warranted. (Opposition, pp. 2:22–23, 3:3, 3:25.)

Plaintiff is correct.

Plaintiff has the right to depose Defendant’s PMQ in a timely manner. Defendant’s alleged production of documents does not have any bearing on the issue of producing its PMQ for deposition. As more than thirty days have passed since Plaintiff’s notice of deposition without the deposition occurring or Defendant making a meritorious objection, Plaintiff has shown good cause for the motion.

Furthermore, has Plaintiff notes in its Reply, it appears that Defense Counsel did not read the Motion to Compel Deposition. Specifically, Defense Counsel needlessly argues that Plaintiff should not receive monetary sanctions.  (See Opposition, p. 3:25 – p. 4:13.)  However, Plaintiff never requested monetary sanctions.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion to Compel Deposition is GRANTED. Defendant’s PMQ shall be made available within ten (10) days of the issuance of this Order.