Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 22STCV02837, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02837    Hearing Date: December 13, 2022    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Cesar Cerero Zarate’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors, LLC’s Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian of Records is granted, in part.  Defendant General Motors, LLC’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable and Custodian of Records are to appear within 15 days, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. If there is a claim of attorney-client or work product privilege, Defendant is ordered to produce a privilege log.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

          Plaintiff Cesar Cerero Zarate (“Cerero Zarate”) (“Plaintiff”), moves to compel Defendant General Motors, LLC (“General Motors”) (“Defendant”) to produce its Person(s) Most Qualified (“PMQ”) and Custodian of Records to appear for deposition.  Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,210.00.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.450(a), (g)(1).)

Background

Plaintiff filed the operative complaint on January 24, 2022, alleging two causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act- Breach of Express Warranty; and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act- Breach of Implied Warranty.  (See Complaint.) Plaintiff alleges on July 29, 2017, he entered into a warranty contract with Defendant to purchase a 2017 Chevrolet Camaro (“Subject Vehicle”), and defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period.  (Complaint ¶¶14, 15.)

Plaintiff submitted evidence that on August 2, 2022, he served a notice of deposition(s) of Defendant’s PMQ and Custodian(s) of Record, which identified 24 matters for examination and 23 requests for document production.  (Decl. of Davina ¶3, Exh. A.)  On August 2, 2022, Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Respondent regarding the notice of deposition to request alternative dates of availability.  (Decl. of Davina ¶5, Exh. B.)  On August 9, 2022, Defendant served a response to Plaintiff’s notice of deposition, and stated Defendant would not produce a witness for the deposition noticed for August 16, 2022, but provided no alternative dates.  (Decl. of Davina ¶6, Exh. C.)  On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff sent a Zoom link via email to Defendant in anticipation of the scheduled deposition, and Defendant and their PMQ did not appear for the deposition.  (Decl. of Davina ¶7, Exhs. B, D.)  Plaintiff sent emails to Defendant on August 16, 2022, September 30, 2022, October 6, 2022, October 10, 2022, and October 12, 2022, asking for dates for the PMQ deposition.  (Decl. of Davina ¶7, Exh. B.)

          Plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 13, 2022.  Defendant filed its opposition on November 28, 2022.  Plaintiff filed his reply on December 6, 2022.

Motion to Compel Deposition

C.C.P. §2025.450(a) provides that, “[i]f, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination . . . , the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony.”

C.C.P. §2025.410(a), provides that, “[a]ny party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with [the notice requirements in C.C.P. §§2025.210 through 2025.290] waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney or party on whom the deposition notice was served.”

C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(1) provides that, “[t]he motion [to compel deposition] shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(2) provides that, “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition . . . by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

Defendant asserted various initial objections to the categories testimony and requests for production including but not limited to that they were: (1) overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, irrelevant, and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (2) sought information that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine; and (3) demands production of trade secret material. (See Opposition Separate Statement.) 

Plaintiff is entitled to an order to compel deposition of Defendant’s PMQ and Custodian(s) of Record pursuant to C.C.P. §§2024.020(a) and 2025.450.  Plaintiff duly noticed Defendant prior to the noticed date of deposition and made multiple attempts to find alternative dates to reschedule, as to relevant information only.  (C.C.P. §205.280(a).)  Plaintiff is not entitled to information that is privileged.  Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling respondent to produce its PMQ in part.  If there is a claim of attorney-client or work product privilege, Defendant is ordered to produce a privilege log.

While the ruling refers to the number of the discovery request or category of testimony at issue, this reference does not indicate that the request or category is granted in full; rather, the request is granted as limited by the ruling.  Similarly, the non-inclusion of a reference to a request number does not indicate a denial of that request if the ruling provides for production subject to the request.  In addition to the items agreed to and discussed above, the motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

1. Defendant is ordered to provide its response pertaining to records and communications about Subject Vehicle’s warranty claim, repairs, and service performed. (Categories 1-5, Requests 1-3, 7, 16);

2. Defendant is ordered to provide its response regarding its pre-litigation repurchase request (Categories 7-10, Requests 4, 9-11, 21);

3. Defendant is ordered to provide its policies and procedures for lemon law and warranty claim buybacks in California (Categories 12-24, Requests 8, 17-20);

4. Defendant is ordered to provide its policies, procedures and guidelines regarding responding to consumer complaints, recording calls, escalating calls in California (Requests 6, 14);

5. Defendant is ordered to provide all TSBs which have been issued for vehicles of the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle in the state of California, from the date of purchase (Request 15)

6. All other categories of testimony and requests for production are denied.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition of Defendant’s PMQ and Custodian(s) of Record and to produce documents is granted, in part.  Defendant’s PMQ and Custodian(s) of Record are to appear and produce documents within 15 days, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Dated:  December _____, 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court