I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiffs Edgar Lopez and Eva Gutierrez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants General Motors LLC (“GM”) and Does 1 through 20 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for the alleged defects of a 2022 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (the "Subject Vehicle”).  

Plaintiffs move to compel the deposition of GM’s person(s) most knowledgeable (“PMK”) and to produce documents pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition.  

GM opposes the motion, and Plaintiffs filed their 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).) 

GM argues Plaintiffs did not meet and confer. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ 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).) 

IV. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiffs’ separate statement identifies PMK Categories 1-21 at issue, and request for production of documents Nos. 1-18. 

CATEGORY NO. 1: All repairs to the Subject Vehicle (“Subject Vehicle” or “Vehicle” shall be defined as the 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, VIN 1GCPDKEK8NZ529885, that is the subject of this lawsuit), including all attempts to diagnose its problems and the time spent diagnosing its problems. 

CATEGORY NO. 11: All information regarding Defendant’s repair procedures consulted and followed during the completion of repairs for the Subject Vehicle. 

CATEGORY NO. 12: All information regarding diagnostic procedures consulted and followed while diagnosing Plaintiffs’ concerns for the Subject Vehicle. 

These all seek information that pertains directly to Plaintiffs’ specific vehicle. GM’s objections that the categories are broad and unduly burdensome are without merit. In terms of the objections that it’s GM-authorized dealerships that have the information, and not GM, it makes little difference whether they come to Plaintiffs via subpoena to the third-party or a discovery request served on GM since the information is plainly accessible to GM. 

Categories 1, 11, and 12 are GRANTED. 

CATEGORY NO. 2: All Technical Service Bulletins applicable to the Subject Vehicle, including those superseded. 

CATEGORY NO. 3: Why these Technical Service Bulletins were issued. 

CATEGORY NO. 4: The process by which a Technical Service Bulletin is issued including but not limited to all criteria, data, or information relied upon. 

CATEGORY NO. 5: All recalls applicable to the Subject Vehicle, including those superseded. 

CATEGORY NO. 6: Why these recalls were issued. 

CATEGORY NO. 21: Any and all information that led to the issuance of Document ID 4366757, including but not limited to the number of customer complaints, amounts paid for repairs, technical hotline inquiries, and any and all data/information relied upon or utilized by General Motors, LLC in the issuance and/or publication of the document. 

CATEGORY NO. 22: Any and all information that led to the issuance of Bulletin 16-NA-361, including but not limited to the number of customer complaints, amounts paid for repairs, technical hotline inquiries, and any and all data/information relied upon or utilized by General Motors, LLC in the issuance and/or publication of the bulletin. 

Any objections on the grounds that the above are vague and ambiguous is without merit. Insofar as to the categories that do not specifically mention “the Subject Vehicle,” it is clear that the recalls referred to relate to Category No. 2 in terms of its applicability to the Subject Vehicle. As to GM’s objections that Document ID 4366757 and Bulletin 16-NA-361 have no bearing on the Subject Vehicle’s repair history or GM’s repurchase decision, defendant’s knowledge of alleged vehicle defects and defendant’s handling of complaints and repurchases, even if the topics pertain to vehicles other than plaintiffs’ vehicle, are relevant and discoverable. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143-44, 154-55 [evidence pertaining to defects in same model transmission in vehicles other than subject vehicle is relevant to Song-Beverly claim]; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973-74, 993 [evidence pertaining to similar problem in other vehicles other than subject vehicle are highly relevant].) 

The motion is GRANTED as to these categories. 

CATEGORY NO. 7: Defendant’s refusal to repurchase Plaintiffs’ Vehicle. 

CATEGORY NO. 8: Defendant’s policies and procedures for evaluating whether a vehicle qualifies for repurchase or replacement under California Lemon Law. 

These call for testimony on GM’s practices for handling warranty claims and lemon law buybacks during the time that Plaintiffs owned their vehicle. It is established that evidence of the practices of a corporate defendant is admissible to show that they conformed to their practices on a particular occasion. (Baron v. Sanger Motor Sales (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 846, 853.) 

The motion is GRANTED for these categories.  

CATEGORY NO. 13: The full names and addresses of anyone involved with the investigation and/or subsequent denial to repurchase the Subject Vehicle. 

CATEGORY NO. 14: The name of those individuals’ employer. 

CATEGORY NO. 15: The identity of all individuals responsible for ensuring that vehicles are properly bought back under the California Lemon Law including all managers and supervisors. 

CATEGORY NO. 16: All agreements in place, including but not limited to indemnity agreements for the production of these individuals at deposition. 

CATEGORY NO. 17: Your ability to produce any of these individuals for deposition. 

CATEGORY NO. 18: Your ability to produce Shavon, the customer service representative associated with the denial to repurchase the Subject Vehicle, for deposition. 

CATEGORY NO. 19: The full name and address of the customer service representative associated with the denial to repurchase the Subject Vehicle. 

CATEGORY NO. 20: The full name and address of employer of the customer service representative associated with the denial to repurchase the Subject Vehicle. 

Information regarding the individuals who were involved in the investigation and repurchase decision could lead to relevant information regarding whether GM breached its duties under the warranties and whether any breach was willful, and these all pertain directly to the Subject Vehicle. 

The motion is GRANTED for these categories.  

GM argues that the request for production demands documents that have already been produced or are irrelevant. To the extent that the documents requested have already been produced in response to requests for production propounded under CCP § 2031.010 et seq., plaintiffs are entitled to request the production of the same documents at deposition under CCP § 2025.210 et seq. (Carter v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 994, 997 [“Nothing in either section 2025 or section 2031 suggests that seeking documents under one statutory procedure bars a litigant from seeking the same documents under the other”].) 

GM argue these documents requests are either irrelevant or overbroad, and that they seek production of trade secret material. GM’s generalized assertion that the breadth of Plaintiffs’ document requests invite production of trade secret material is unsupported. If GM 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.)  

Request Nos. 1-5, 7-10, 14-16 are GRANTED. These are already limited to the Subject Vehicle, and therefore granted. 

Request Nos. 6 and 11-13 are GRANTED subject to the following limitation. The relevance of this inquiry is limited to (a) vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the one belonging to Plaintiffs, (b) facing similar environmental conditions (i.e. operated in Southern California), and (c) displaying issues similar to those alleged by Plaintiffs. 

Requests Nos. 17-18 are GRANTED for the same reasons as the above PMK categories. 

V. CONCLUSION 

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to the PMK categories, and GRANTED in terms of the document production, but subject to the limitation set forth above. GM is ordered to produce its PMK for deposition and documents, as set forth above, within 20 days. 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.