Judge Nathan Vu, Case 2021-01218428 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2021-01218428, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel

Plaintiff Olga V. Gonzalez’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors LLC’s person most qualified is GRANTED as to category numbers 10, 11, 15, 16, 23, 26, and 33.

Plaintiff Olga V. Gonzalez’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors LLC’s person most qualified is DENIED as to category numbers 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, and 30.

Defendant General Motors LLC is ORDERED to produce the person(s) most qualified as to category numbers 10, 11, 15, 16, 23, 26, and 33 for deposition at a mutually agreeable date and time, but no later than 30 days after receiving notice of this ruling (unless a later date is agreed to in writing by both parties).

Plaintiff Olga V. Gonzalez’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s Person(s) Most Qualified is DENIED as to all document requests.

Plaintiff Olga V. Gonzalez moves to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motor LLC’s Person(s) Most Qualified regarding categories 10-20, 23, 26-30, and 33 as set out in Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Deposition of the Person(s) Most Qualified for Defendant General Motors, LLC and Demand to Produce Documents at Deposition (Amended Notice).

Civil Procedure Code section 2025.450(a) provides that if a party witness fails to appear or produce documents, without having served a valid objection, the noticing party may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (Civil Proc. Code, § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Meet and Confer

However, the motion to compel must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration “showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion” or by a declaration that the moving party has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Civil Proc. Code, §§ 2016.040 & 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)

The meet and confer requirement is designed “to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order . . . . This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016, quoting Townsend v. Superior Ct. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435, internal quotations and citations omitted.) Thus, there must be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.)

“[T]he law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Id.) The particular level of effort required in each case depends on the circumstances including the amount of discovery propounded, the time available to confer before the motion filing deadline, and the extent to which a party was complicit in the lapse of available time. (Obregon v. Superior Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432.) “An evaluation of whether, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the discovering party, additional effort appeared likely to bear fruit, should also be considered. Although some effort is required in all instances, the level of effort that is reasonable is different in different circumstances, and may vary with the prospects for success.” (Id. at pp. 432–33.)

Defendant first argues that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith. While Plaintiff could have discussed the issues in greater detail with Defendant, it is clear from the motion papers that the parties have reached an impasse. Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Section 2025.450(b)(2).

Categories of Examination

While Plaintiff’s Amended Notice identifies thirty-five categories of examination, Plaintiff now moves to compel only some of these categories, which are grouped into two general areas:

Information relating to Defendant’s internal investigation and analysis of the defects in Plaintiff’s vehicle and prior knowledge of such defects (Nos. 16-20, 23, 27-30 and 33), and

Defendant’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, practices, and procedures (Nos. 10-15 and 26).

Category numbers 10, 11, 15, 16, 23, 26, and 33 seek evidence that is relevant, and is admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant’s past production of documents does not render these categories of examination duplicative, oppressive, or irrelevant. To the extent the categories seek confidential or proprietary information, Defendant can assert those objections at the deposition.

The remaining categories – numbers 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, and 30 – are vague and overbroad, seek irrelevant information, and place undue burdens on Defendant.

Document Production

In the conclusion of Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant to “produce full and complete documents responsive to the Requests”. (Mem. P.&A.’s at p. 10:16-17.)

However, Plaintiff’s notice of motion and separate statement fails to include any requests for production of documents. Further, no good cause has been shown for the production of documents.

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to the Kay Declaration are OVERRULED.

The court DECLINES to rule on Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to the Lu Declaration, as the declaration was not material to the disposition of this motion.

Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.