Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00294, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CMCV00294    Hearing Date: October 24, 2023    Dept: A

22CMCV00294 Briana Garcia v. General Motors, LLC

Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENANDANCE OF A PERSON MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS OF DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

I.        BACKGROUND

            The complaint alleges that Plaintiff bought a vehicle 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 served on August 16, 2023. Plaintiff requested four matters for examination and six categories of document requests. Defendant made boilerplate objections, refused to produce a witness, and failed to appear at the August 30, 2023, deposition. Defendant refuses to produce a witness. The Court should impose sanctions.

      In opposition, Defendant states it agreed to produce a witness responsive to two categories relevant to this case and subject to objections based on relevance. Plaintiff failed to properly meet and confer regarding Defendant’s timely objections.

      Plaintiff argues in reply that Plaintiff has continued to meet and confer with Defendant ignores Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer and has failed to appear at two properly noticed depositions.

III.    DISCUSSION

      This Court has observed a dramatic increase in motions to compel further responses to document requests as well as motions to compel defendant car manufacturers to produce a person most qualified (“PMQ”) for deposition in actions for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Act”). This Court has heard numerous discovery motions involving General Motors’ failure to respond to a document request or relating to General Motors’ refusal to produce a PMQ except as limited by Defendant. The Court has previously articulated its position regarding the discovery issues raised in the following cases involving General Motors:

      The parties’ meet and confer efforts do not appear to be made in good faith considering the Court’s numerous rulings addressing each of the objections asserted and the discoverability of certain topics typical of lemon law cases. With the assistance of this Court’s prior rulings, the parties can easily resolve the repetitive issues on these discovery motions. Discovery is “intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention,” and a “central precept” of the Civil Discovery Act is that discovery be self-executing. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.) 

      This motion raises the same issues with respect to the discoverability of information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims under the Act. The parties are well versed on the Court’s position on these same issues. Defendant repeatedly and improperly fails to serve a privilege log, maintains objections without any supporting evidence, unilaterally limits the scope of inquiry to Plaintiff’s vehicle although the Court has previously discussed the discoverability of “other vehicle evidence.” Defendant repeatedly contends that Plaintiff is not entitled to the same or substantially the same documents or deposition testimony that have been established as relevant and discoverable. This conduct unnecessarily burdens the Court and Plaintiff.

      California trial courts have expansive authority to employ whatever procedures they see fit, so long as they do not violate any statutory or legislative guidance. (Code Civ. Proc. § 187.) In the discovery context, the Court has “broad discretion in controlling the course of discovery and in making the various decisions necessitated by discovery proceedings.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.) Additionally, the Legislature “has granted the power to every court to provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it.” (Hernandez v. FCA US LLC (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 329, 338.) 

      Accordingly, the Court orders both counsel to meet and confer with this Court’s prior rulings in mind.  If the parties are unable to resolve all their issues prior to the continued hearing on the motion, they must file a joint statement of items that remain in dispute. The joint statement must list each category of inquiry remaining in dispute, Defendant’s response and/or objection, and each party’s statement for why Defendant should or should not produce a PMQ on that category of inquiry.  With respect to the document request, the parties are ordered to file a joint statement of each item remaining in dispute, Defendant’s response, and why the document should or should not be produced.

      In addition, the parties are ordered to comply with the Court’s “Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation) regarding Discovery.”  The Clerk is ordered to serve this order on the parties.   

      If the parties resolve their issues, the moving party must take the motion off calendar using the online reservation system.  If they are unable to resolve their issues, they must also file short (no more than five pages) briefs and declarations detailing their efforts to meet and confer. 

IV. CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, the Court continues the hearing on this motion to November 15, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department A of the Compton Courthouse. Any further briefings discussed above shall be filed five court days before the continued hearing. The Court will consider the Plaintiff’s request for imposition of monetary sanctions at the next hearing if necessary.