Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV44967, Date: 2024-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44967    Hearing Date: September 6, 2024    Dept: 78

I.         BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Edder Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 10 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person(s) most knowledgeable (“PMK”) pursuant to Plaintiff’s First Amended Notice of Deposition. Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

            Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A party desiring to take an oral deposition shall give a notice in writing which states the specification of reasonably particularly of any materials to be produced by the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.220, subd. (a)(4).) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) The party served with a deposition notice waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).)

If the deponent named in a deposition notice is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which the examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at he deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.230.)

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action … without having served a valid objection … fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, … described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document … described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

III.      MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT

A motion to compel a party deponent’s attendance at their deposition must generally be accompanied by a “meet and confer” declaration under¿CCP section 2016.040.¿(CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).)¿ At a minimum, each party must “confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney,” and make a “reasonable and good faith” attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery; failure by any party to do so is a misuse of the discovery process.¿(CCP § 2023.010(i).)

Defendant argues Plaintiff did not meet and confer. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration regarding meet and confer efforts, and the accompanying exhibits. The Court finds moving party has sufficiently complied with the requirement to “meet and confer” under¿CCP section 2016.040.¿(CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).)

III.      DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s separate statement identifies Categories 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9-13, and 18-21 at issue.

A.    Category Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6

CATEGORY NO. 1: Questions relating to the nature and extent of all of the service history and warranty history relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

CATEGORY NO. 2: Questions relating to the applicable warranties provided by YOU covering the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

CATEGORY NO. 3: Questions relating to all service advisory notices, technical service bulletins, recalls, DEFECT(S) investigations, and other REPAIR DOCUMENTS relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

CATEGORY NO. 6: Questions regarding all REPAIR DOCUMENTS that YOU have issued to YOUR dealers and/or consumers regarding the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT(S) or other non-conformities experienced by Plaintiff with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Defendant has agreed to produce a PMK for the aforementioned. Any objections on the grounds that the above are protected by attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product doctrine, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, are without merit. Further, in terms Defendant’s objections on the grounds of trade secret/confidential/propriety information, a party that is claiming the trade secret privilege has the burden of proving the party's entitlement to that privilege. (Amgen Inc. v California Correctional Health Care Servs. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 716, 733.) Defendant’s generalized assertion that the breadth of Plaintiff’s categories invites production of trade secret material is wholly unsupported and without merit. If Defendant fears trade secrets may be revealed, it is their burden to show good cause in seeking a protective order. (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 318.)

The motion is GRANTED for these categories, which seek relevant information about Plaintiff’s vehicle and information specific to the litigation at hand. Defendant must produce its PMK for these full topics, not its equivocal limitations on the topics.

B.    Category Nos. 8-13, and 21

CATEGORY NO. 8: Questions regarding the nature, extent, and substance of correspondence between YOU, and other persons or entities regarding the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT(S).

CATEGORY NO. 9: Questions regarding the nature of the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT(S) in CHEVROLET VEHICLES, including the cause of the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT(S), all available fixes that have been made available to your authorized dealers to date, and the subsequent results of such fixes.

CATEGORY NO. 10: Questions regarding YOUR ongoing efforts to understand and repair or remedy the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT, including all internal investigations, tests, assessments, reports, modifications, and other efforts undertaken by YOU in response to the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT in CHEVROLET VEHICLES.

CATEGORY NO. 11: Questions regarding the nature, extent, and substance of correspondence between YOU, and other persons or entities regarding the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT(S).

CATEGORY NO. 12: Questions regarding the nature of the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT(S) in CHEVROLET VEHICLES, including the cause of the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT(S), all available fixes that have been made available to your authorized dealers to date, and the subsequent results of such fixes.

CATEGORY NO. 13: Questions regarding YOUR ongoing efforts to understand and repair or remedy the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT(S), including all internal investigations, tests, assessments, reports, modifications, and other efforts undertaken by YOU in response to the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT(S) in CHEVROLET VEHICLES.

CATEGORY NO. 21: Questions regarding the terms of YOUR Owners’ manual, maintenance schedule, YOUR express warranty or any extended warranty that might be in effect, and as they relate to the COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT(S).

            Here, “COOLING SYSTEM DEFECT(S)” is defined as “symptoms including, excessive loss of and/or low engine coolant; premature failure of engine and/or cooling system components; cooling system leak(s); and/or emission of malodorous fumes in the passenger compartment; and/or any other similar concern identified in the repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE." Additionally, the term “CHEVROLET VEHICLES” is defined as “[A]ll vehicles manufactured and/or sold by GENERAL MOTORS LLC that are equipped with the cooling system like the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” Lastly, the term “SUBJECT VEHICLE” is defined as “the 2012 Chevrolet Sonic, vehicle identification number 1G1JC6SH3C4109012, which is the subject of this lawsuit.”

Defendant provides that it has already agreed, and remains willing, to produce a PMK as to Category Nos. 1-16 and 21-25. The foregoing Categories are thus included as part of Defendant’s agreement. For the merits of Defendant’s objections, the Court refers to the above subsection. Additionally, the Court is unclear as to why Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant limiting the scope to its relation to the subject vehicle, when the terms as defined relates it to the subject vehicle at issue in this action. To the extent that Plaintiff is requesting information about the cooling system of other types of vehicles, regardless of the make, model, or year, the Court finds any such request to be overbroad and unduly burdensome.

The motion is GRANTED for these categories subject to the limitation of vehicles of the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle which were sold within the State of California.

C.    Category Nos. 18, 19, 20

CATEGORY NO. 18: Questions regarding YOUR efforts to search for documents and information responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests in this matter, including the sources of information (both hard copy and electronic databases) searched, the search methods employed, the search terms employed, the identification of custodians for such sources of information, etc.

CATEGORY NO. 19: Questions relating to YOUR advertising of CHEVROLET VEHICLES.

CATEGORY NO. 20: Questions relating to YOUR policies/guides/instructions provided to YOUR dealerships in connection with YOUR dealerships’ advertising of CHEVROLET VEHICLES.

Although discovery is not limitless, it is broad. As it pertains to relevance, “…any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010).

It is not apparent that any advertisement of vehicles sold by Defendant that are equipped with the same cooling system as the subject vehicle has any bearing on Plaintiff’s claims, nor is it relevant or necessary to prove the elements of Plaintiff’s claim. As to No. 18, Defendant objected on the grounds that it is “discovery on discovery.” Plaintiff’s separate statement argues that the source of information search is relevant to Defendant’s awareness of the defects, inability to repair, and failure to repurchase. The Court disagrees. There is no apparent connection between how responsive documents were searched for it to be produced to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s arguments regarding Defendant’s awareness and failure to repurchase are already covered by the other categories.

The motion is DENIED for these categories.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part. Defendant is ordered to produce its PMK for deposition, as set forth above, within 20 days.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

DATED: September 5, 2024

__________________________

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

•           Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.

•           If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

•           Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

•           If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.