Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00259, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV00259 Hearing Date: September 14, 2023 Dept: A
22CMCV00259 Juana Bautista
Rodriguez v. General Motors, LLC
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE
DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff
purchased a 2019 Chevrolet Traverse made and distributed by Defendant. The
vehicle suffered from widespread defects that Defendant failed to repair within
a reasonable number of attempts in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff requests an order to compel Defendant to produce its
person most qualified (“PMQ”) to testify on the topics identified in
Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition and Demand to Produce Documents served on January
30, 2023. Defendant made boilerplate objections and refused to produce a
witness. Plaintiff served the same notice every month until July 12, 2023, but
Defendant refuses to produce a witness.
In opposition, Defendant states it agreed to produce a witness responsive
to certain categories pertinent to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Many of the categories
identified in the notice are irrelevant and/or overbroad. Plaintiffs failed to meet
and confer. Plaintiff unilaterally scheduled the deposition. The notice
includes production of trade secret material. Production would cause undue
burden on Defendant.
Plaintiffs argue in reply that all categories of inquiry are
relevant.
III. DISCUSSION
If
a party fails to appear for a deposition after service of a deposition notice,
without having served a valid objection, the party giving notice may move for
an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production
for inspection of any document or tangible thing described in the notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450.) The moving party must show good
cause for the deposition and attempt to meet and confer. (Id.)
The parties have met
and conferred without success. Defendant offers no substantive or persuasive
argument for failing to produce its witness. Defendant has not supported its
contention that it is entitled to unilaterally limit Plaintiff’s inquiries
without moving for a protective order.
As the Court has
previously express articulated in the same lemon law motions involving General
Motors, to prevail on a claim for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act (“the Act”) Plaintiff’s burden is to establish that “(1) the
vehicle had a nonconformity covered by the express warranty that substantially
impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle (the nonconformity element);
(2) the vehicle was presented to an authorized representative of the
manufacturer of the vehicle for repair (the presentation element); and (3) the
manufacturer or his representative did not repair the nonconformity after a
reasonable number of repair attempts (the failure to repair element). " (Oregel v. American Isuzu
Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.)
All categories of
inquiry are relevant, not vague or ambiguous, or overbroad. To the extent
Defendant objects to testimony concerning confidentiality, trade secret,
attorney-client privilege, work product, or any other privilege, Defendant’s
remedy is to object to the question at the time of the deposition, not limit
testimony as it deems appropriate or refuse to produce a witness.
None of the objections
have merit. Plaintiff is entitled to testimony and documents at issue.
Defendant objects to the request because Plaintiff did not limit it to the
subject vehicle at issue. However, the scope of documents extending to vehicles
of the same make and model (“other vehicle evidence”) is relevant because
Plaintiff must establish Defendant’s knowledge of the power train defect in the
same vehicle as stated previously. The Act requires the manufacturer to
designate service and repair facilities throughout the state which enable the
manufacturer to become aware of every failed repair attempt. Krotin 38 Cal.App.4th at 303. Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217
Cal.App.4th 138, 154 [Testimony about a defective transmission installed in
plaintiff’s truck and other trucks and what the manufacturer did to notify
dealers and technicians about problems with this transmission model was
“certainly probative and not unduly prejudicial."].
The categories of
inquiry and the document request are equally relevant to Plaintiff’s burden of
establishing Defendant’s non-compliance with its obligations under the Act to
reasonably attempt to repair the vehicle. Oregel at 1101. This is
relevant to the recovery of civil penalties if the buyer can show that “the
manufacturer's failure to comply was willful. The penalty is important ‘as a
deterrent to deliberate violations. Without such a provision, a seller or
manufacturer who knew the consumer was entitled to a refund or replacement
might nevertheless be tempted to refuse compliance in the hope the consumer
would not persist, secure in the knowledge its liability was limited to refund
or replacement.’” Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 136.
To establish this
violation, the jury can consider whether “(1) the manufacturer knew the vehicle
had not been repaired within a reasonable period or after a reasonable number
of attempts, and (2) whether the manufacturer had a written policy on the
requirement to repair or replace. (Id. at pp. 185-186.)” (Jensen at
136.)
Defendant has not
established that compliance with the document request will be unreasonably
burdensome and oppressive.
Defendant’s remedy is to move for a protective order, not refuse to
respond or unilaterally impose limitations on Plaintiff’s discovery. To support
an objection of oppression, there must be some showing by the opposing party
either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate
effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought. (West Pico Furniture Co.
v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.)
Oppression must not be equated with burden; “[t]he objection based upon burden
must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required, … .” Id.
Defendant has not met its burden.
Defendant refuses to produce documents that it determines
constitutes trade secret or proprietary information or is protected by the
attorney-client privilege. Defendant is
required to provide a privilege log of all the documents at issue and the
specific objection so that the court can determine whether any privilege
applies. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240 subp. (b).) The privilege log must
contain clear descriptions of the documents as set forth in the statute.
The statute requires production of documents that are in the
possession, custody, or control of that party. Defendant is also required to
provide contact information of any organization believed to have possession,
custody, or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) Defendant’s response is improperly limiting.
To the extent that Defendant refers Plaintiff to documents
previously produced, the response is improper. Plaintiff is entitled to a complete response
in the form required by statute. It is not proper to answer “by stating, ‘see
my deposition,’ ‘see my pleading,’ or ‘see the financial statement. Indeed, if
a question does require the responding party to make reference to a pleading or
document, the pleading or document should be identified and summarized so the
answer is fully responsive to the question.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne,
(1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783-784.)
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to produce a witness or
witnesses qualified to testify on the topics identified in Plaintiff’s Notice
of Deposition and to comply with the Demand to Produce Documents at Deposition
within 10 days without limitation or condition.