Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00631, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV00631 Hearing Date: October 3, 2023 Dept: A
23CMCV00631 Jose Lemus v. General
Motors, LLC
[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE
DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST QUALIFIED AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
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’s to produce its
person most qualified (“PMQ”) to testify on the topics identified in
Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition served on May 24, 2023. Defendant made
boilerplate objections and refused to produce a witness although Plaintiff
agreed to withdraw contested matters involving lemon law buybacks and agreed to
a protective order. Defendant refuses to produce a witness.
In opposition, Defendant states it agreed to produce a witness responsive
to certain categories pertinent to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. The only issue is
setting a date.
Plaintiffs argue in reply that 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. 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. The Court has
previously articulated its position regarding the discovery issues raised in
the following cases involving General Motors: 21CMCV00174, Nicolas Perez; 22CMCV00224
Zachary Jay Woody, II; 22CMCV00171 Lizandro Gonzalez; 22CMCV00569 Marylyn
Yvette Jones; 22CMCV00259 Juana Bautista Rodriguez; 22CMCV00238 Christopher Robinson;
21CMCV00285 Augusto Barco-Robledo; 22CMCV0060 Anselma Olmedo De Ceja; and 22CMCV000278
Pedro Mauricio Mendoza;
The parties’ meet and
confer efforts do not appear to be made in good faith in light of 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 of 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.
The Court incorporates
its Addendum to Case Management Conference Order Re Song-Beverly Litigation on
Discovery previously served on Defendant. The parties are ordered to comply
with the guidelines set forth therein.
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.
Based on the foregoing,
the Court continues the hearing on this motion to