Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00317, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CMCV00317    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: A

22CMCV00317 Rosa O. Ibarra, et al. v. General Motors, LLC

Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND ATTENDANCE OF A PERSON MOST QUALIFIED

I.        BACKGROUND

      The complaint alleges that Defendant issued to Plaintiffs an express warranty in connection with Plaintiffs’ lease of a 2018 Chevrolet Silverado made and distributed by Defendant. The vehicle suffered from a defect within the transmission system that Defendant failed to repair within a reasonable number of attempts in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

II.      ARGUMENTS

      Plaintiffs request an order to compel Defendant, General Motors, LLC (“GM”) to produce its person most qualified (“PMQ”) to testify on categories 1-8, 10, and 11 as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition of the Person Most Qualified and Demand to Produce Documents at Deposition. GM is using the same obstructionist strategy that it employs in other cases.  

      In opposition, GM argues it offered to produce a PMQ tailored to Plaintiffs’ specific vehicle. GM properly objected to categories of inquiry and production not involving Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

      Plaintiffs argue in reply that regardless of prior discovery propounded by Plaintiffs, they are entitled to take the deposition of a person most qualified. GM agreed to produce a witness and documents responsive to the categories at issue but refuses to provide a deposition date.

III.    DISCUSSION

      Of the 38 active cases for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”) filed in this Court against GM, this is the 30^th discovery motion to date involving GM’s failure to respond to relevant and discoverable requests for documents or to produce a person most qualified (“PMQ”). As in every discovery motion brought by a plaintiff against GM, GM opposes on the same grounds: Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good faith, the discovery involves irrelevant topics that include vehicles other than Plaintiffs’ (“other vehicle evidence”), the documents are subject to numerous privileges, and/or compliance is unduly burdensome and oppressive.

      The Court has previously articulated its position on these same issues in multiple discovery motions raised in the following cases involving GM:

      In this case, Defense counsel failed to respond in good faith to Plaintiffs’ requests to set a deposition date, although GM agreed to produce a witness for certain categories. (Arbre Kornely Declaration, Ex. D.) GM failed to respond to that email or a second email set sent on December 4, 2023. (Id., Ex. E.) Given the impending trial date set for March 20, 2024, Plaintiffs sent an amended deposition notice setting the deposition for January 8, 2024. (Id. Ex. F.)

      GM again objected on numerous grounds and took issue with Plaintiff unilaterally scheduling the deposition without consulting defense counsel. (Id. Ex. G.) This issue could have been avoided had GM responded to Plaintiffs’ emails to schedule a mutually convenient date. Plaintiffs again requested dates for the deposition by email sent January 3, 2024, but defense counsel failed to respond. (Kornely Declaration, ¶ 16, Ex. H.)

      Defense counsel does not provide any documentary evidence that he conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel about the limited categories of inquiry that Defendant would permit. There is no explanation for defense counsel’s failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ emails.

      GM’S opposition again offers no substantive or persuasive argument to support its objections to the PMQ deposition notice or document request. The Court has previously determined that Plaintiffs’ discovery requests fall within the broad scope of discovery in lemon law cases. The Court has conducted informal discovery conferences on other matters with GM’s counsel (Erskine Law Firm) explaining why the discovery is permissible.

      While Defendant may object based on confidential, propriety, and trade secret information, this is not a basis for refusing to produce a witness. Defendant is required to provide a privilege log of all documents withheld and the specific objection asserted to enable the Court to 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. (Id.)

      Plaintiffs are entitled to discover other vehicle evidence. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154. The requests are relevant to Plaintiffs’ burden of establishing Defendant’s non-compliance with its obligations under the Act to reasonably attempt to repair the vehicle. (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.) The discovery is also relevant to the recovery of civil penalties. (Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 136.

      GM has not provided any evidence that compliance with the document request will be unreasonably burdensome and oppressive. GM’s remedy is to move for a protective order, not refuse to respond or unilaterally impose limitations on Plaintiffs’ discovery. GM did not meet its burden of proof on that issue. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.)

      In anticipation of GM’s contention that it requires more than 10 days to comply because it is overburdened by the number of lemon law cases it must defend, the discovery propounded, and the depositions for which witnesses must be produced, this is not an issue for the Court to resolve. Trial is presently set for March 20, 2024, and Plaintiffs first served a deposition notice on January 15, 2023. (Korneley, Ex. B.) Over one year later, Plaintiffs have not been able to secure firm dates.  

IV.    CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to produce a witness or witnesses qualified to testify on all topics of inquiry identified in Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition and to comply with the Demand to Produce Documents at Deposition within 10 days without objection, limitation, or condition. Plaintiffs did not request imposition of sanctions; therefore, none is awarded.