Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00544, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:

1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and

3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 

TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 23CMCV00544    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    Dept: A

23CMCV00544 Jessica Flores, et al. v. General Motors, LLC

Thursday, October 31, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND ATTENDANCE OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST QUALIFIED AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

I.        BACKGROUND

       The complaint alleges that Defendant issued to Plaintiffs an express warranty in connection with Plaintiffs’ purchase of a 2022 Chevrolet Silverado made and distributed by Defendant. The vehicle suffered from defects within the engine, electrical, emission, and steering system that Defendant allegedly failed to repair within a reasonable number of attempts in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Act”).

II.      ARGUMENTS

       Plaintiffs request an order to compel Defendant, General Motors, LLC (“GM” or “Defendant.) to produce its person most qualified (“PMQ”) to testify and produce documents relating to Defendant’s internal policies and procedures when evaluating consumer’s requests for repurchase of their vehicles. The topics of inquiry and production are necessary to support Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendant willfully violated the Act. Plaintiffs request an order to strike Defendant’s objections thereto and order Defendant to produce a witness and documents in response to the PMQ notice.

       In opposition, GM argues it offered to produce a PMQ and documents limited only to Plaintiffs’ specific vehicle. GM contends it properly objected to categories of inquiry and production not involving Plaintiffs’ vehicle as such information is irrelevant. Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to meet and confer about Defendant’s requested limitation on scope. Defendant has already objected to production of the same records identified in Plaintiffs’ request for production of documents.

       Plaintiffs did not file a reply brief by October 23, 2024, five court days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005(b).)  

III.    LEGAL STANDARDS

       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.)

IV.    DISCUSSION

       At issue is an amended PMQ notice served September 22, 2023 detailing 34 matters for examination and 16 requests for production of documents pertaining to Plaintiff’s vehicle and the same or similar vehicles, technical service bulletins (“TSB”), Defendant’s internal policies and procedures, knowledge of other defects, and Defendant’s proposed remedies. (Mot. Ex. 3.) Defendant did not serve formal objections and did not provide a witness as noticed. (Nicholas Yaworski decl., ¶ 18.)

       Defendant sent a letter objecting to the notice. (Id., Ex. 4.) Thereafter, the parties exchanged meet and confer letters beginning on July 31, 2024. (Id. Exs. 5-6.) Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that Defendant has not provided a meaningful or reasonable deposition date. (Id. ¶ 23.)

       The court has previously articulated its position on these same issues in multiple discovery motions against General Motors.  Defendant’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 Song-Beverly cases.

       While Defendant may assert an objection based on confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information, this is not a basis for refusing to produce a witness. Any written objection to a document request shall comply with the Code. 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.) Regardless, GM did not provide any valid support for the objections it now asserts in its opposition.

       Defendant’s attempt to limit discovery to Plaintiffs’ vehicle only is improper. 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.)

       The Court has previously refused to consider the six-year-old Declaration of Huizhen Lu, Defendant’s Senior Technical Consultant, submitted in support of GM’s contention that the discovery sought includes trade secret and confidential information. (Cameron Major Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. B.) GM provides a copy of the same declaration signed on October 25, 2018, that contains generalized statements about purported trade secret and confidential information which “may” be contained in the requested discovery. This assertion is vague, evasive, and speculative. The declaration predates the filing of this action and the date of manufacture of the vehicle at issue. Defendant’s objections are not substantiated.

       Defendant cannot unilaterally determine what categories of inquiry are subject to discovery or usurp the court’s determination of whether objections have merit.

       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. Plaintiffs served the first PMQ deposition notice on August 22, 2023. (Yowarski Decl., ¶ 15.) Trial is presently set for January 22, 2025. Over one year later, Plaintiffs have not been prevented from taking the deposition.  

       Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of sanctions for Defendant’s failure to proceed with substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.430.) The court reduces the time claimed by Plaintiffs.

V.      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 Request for Production of Documents at Deposition within 10 days without objection, limitation, or condition. Sanctions of $1,382.50 are imposed against Defendant, General Motors, LLC and its counsel, Erskine Law, APC, jointly and severally, and payable to Plaintiffs within 10 days.