TENTATIVE RULING 

Calendar: 3

Date: 12/6/2024

Case No: 23 GDCV 00475      Trial Date:  May 12, 2025 

Case Name: Quintero v. General Motors, LLC 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Moving Party: Plaintiff Raul Quintero     

Responding Party: Defendant General Motors LLC   

Name of Deponent: PMQ of General Motors LLC      

Status of Deponent: Defendant or defendant affiliate (party)

DEPO ATTENDANCE REQUIRED BY:

Formal Notice [Amended Notice, Ex. 1].

RELIEF REQUESTED BY MOVING PARTY:

Order compelling deposition of defendant General Motors LLC Persons Most Qualified, with production of documents

DECLARATION SUPPORTING MOTION:

Reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally:   Yes, Ex. 3

MONETARY SANCTION:

None sought 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Raul C. Quintero alleges that in August of 2022 plaintiff purchased a 2022 Chevrolet Silverado vehicle, and received an express written warranty pursuant to which defendant General Motors, LLC undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the vehicle or provide compensation if there was a failure in such utility or performance for a specified period of time. 

Plaintiff alleges that after plaintiff took possession of the vehicle, and during the warranty period the vehicle contained or developed defects which substantially impair the use, safety, and value of the vehicle, including a defective electrical system, engine, fuel system ignition system, and connectivity system.  

Plaintiff alleges plaintiff provided defendant and its representatives in this state with sufficient opportunity to service or repair the vehicle, but that defendant and its representatives were unable or failed to service or repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts. 

The complaint alleges five causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civil Code section 1793.2, for Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2, for Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2, for Breach of Express Warranty, and for Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability.  

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendant GM to produce its Person Most Qualified to appear and testify at a deposition and produce documents requested in the deposition notice. 

The moving papers show that plaintiff has served defendant with an Amended Notice of Deposition, on July 9, 2024, and that defendant GM served written objections. [Manno Decl., paras. 6, 7, Exs. !, 2].   

Plaintiff indicates that despite numerous meet and confer efforts, defendant GM has not responded and has not proposed any potential dates for the deposition. [Manno Decl., paras. 8-11, Ex. 3].  

The motion includes a meet and confer email sent on August 19, 2024, requesting dates for the deposition, which was evidently not responded to.  [Manno Decl., paras. 10, 11, Ex. 3].

This motion was filed and served on August 28, 2024, and evidently no deposition dates have been provided by defendant.   

CCP § 2025.450 (a) provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party..., without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing 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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

Under CCP section 2025.230, with respect to the deposition of the person most knowledgeable: 

“If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested.  In that event the deponent shall designate and produce at 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.”

“(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

(1) The motion 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.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

It is not clear why defendant has not provided a date for a deposition it recognizes must be conducted in the many months before this motion was filed, and in the time before opposition to the motion was due.  The motion accordingly is granted and the deposition and production of documents is ordered.   Any argument that documents have already been produced is rejected by the court, as plaintiff is entitled to documents responsive to the current form of discovery.   

Pursuant to that Order, “any formal discovery propounded and currently pending or outstanding by a party in this matter prior to the date of this CMC Order is stayed pending further order of the Court.”

[Order section (1)(a)]. 

The Order sets forth the following provision concerning discovery in Song-Beverly matters which appear to address the discovery disputes raised by the current motion. With respect to depositions, the Order provides:

4. Deposition:  Within the time limits allowed by law.  Defendant may depose plaintiff, and plaintiff may depose the person most knowledgeable (PMK) as to up to 5 categories of information, plus a deposition of the PMK as to why the subject vehicle was not repurchased, in addition to depositions of any experts identified by the parties, after a formal demand and exchange of expert witness information, per CCP § 2034.  Parties shall meet and confer as to whether there is a need to take any additional depositions.  Any additional depositions may only be noticed and taken by stipulation and/or court order (via motion upon showing of good cause).

If a deponent resides out of state, the deposition may be taken by video conference or telephone.  The parties will not be required to travel to California, and the attorneys will not be required to travel out of state.”

[Order, section 4], emphasis added. 

“Production of Documents:  Within 60 days of service of this Order both plaintiff and defendant shall provide copies of the following documents, which are in their respective possession, custody and/or control, to the opposing side(s):

a. Purchase or lease contracts concerning the subject vehicle, including any associated documents reflecting OEM or aftermarket equipment installed at the dealership, ELWs or service contracts, and any other writings signed by the plaintiff at the point of sale.

b. Work orders, repair orders, and invoices (including accounting and warranty versions) for any maintenance, service and repair activity concerning the subject vehicles.

c. Rental car or loaner agreements regarding alternative transportation provided during service or repair visits concerning the subject vehicle.

d. Records of communications with dealer personnel, and/or factory representatives and defendant’s call center or customer assistance personnel concerning the subject vehicle.

e. Warrant claims submitted to and/or approved by defendant concerning the subject vehicle.

f. Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual or similar policies or claim-handling procedures published by Defendant from the date the subject vehicle was purchased or leased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

g. Defendant’s written statements of policy and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase or replacement pursuant to “Lemon Law” claims, including ones brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date the subject vehicle was purchased or leased to the date the lawsuit was filed.

h. A list of or compilation of customer complaints in defendant’s electronically stored information database that are substantially similar to the alleged defects claimed by plaintiff, in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle.  A substantially similar customer complaint would be the same nature of reported symptom, malfunction, dashboard indicator light, or other manifestation of a repair problem as the description listed in any work order or repair order for the subject vehicle, other than routine or scheduled maintenance items.  The list provided by defendant may be in the chart or spreadsheet format, and shall include the VIN, date of repair visit, dealership or other reporting location, and text of the other customers’ reported complaint, but shall not include the other customers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or other personal identifying information.

i. Technical Service Bulletins and Recall Notices for vehicle purchased or leased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle.

j. Copies of any repair instruction, bulletin, or other diagnostic/repair procedure identified in any of the repair order/invoice records for the subject vehicle.

k. Receipts or other written evidence supporting any incidental or consequential damages claimed by plaintiff.

If a party believes any of this information should be subject to a protective order, that party shall serve and file a proposed protective order within 5 days of this Order and the parties shall meet and confer as to agreeable language for the same.  The default will be the standard Protective Order provided by the LASC in its website.

The information may be provided to the opposing party in electronic form as a PDF at the option of the producing party.

Plaintiff and defendant shall serve verification with the documents they produce.

Any additional requests for documents may only be propounded by stipulation and/or court order (via motion upon showing of good cause).

[Order section (2)(a)].

The parties are also directed to the Notice to All Counsel Re: Lemon Law Cases for Department D, entitled Customary Rulings Re Document Requests (Song Beverly Litigation) (Notice).  That Notice provides:

“When the court is faced with a discovery dispute in a Song-Beverly case, the court will usually order that the plaintiff and defendant provide copies of the following documents, which are in their respective possession, custody and/or control, to the opposing side: 

1. Defendant shall produce the “Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual” published by Defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the period of [date of purchase] to present. 

2. Defendant shall produce any internal analysis or investigation regarding defects alleged in plaintiff's complaint in vehicles for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. This includes Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins. Defendant is not required to do a search of emails. 

3. Defendant shall produce any customer complaints relating to defects alleged in plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. 

4. Defendant shall produce all documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for the period of [date of purchase] to present. 

5. Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

6. Communications with dealer, factory representative and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle.

7. Warranty claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the subject vehicle. 

8. Purchase and/or lease contract concerning the subject vehicle. 

9. Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle. 

10. Any documents supporting plaintiff’s claim for incidental and/or consequential damages.”

With respect to the documents requested, the production is to be made and the deposition conducted in accordance with the Order and Notice.  If there is some further dispute concerning the production of documents or the conduct of the deposition, the parties must comply with the Order and Notice, and meet and confer in good faith concerning any outstanding discovery in light of the Order and Notice, and, if necessary, pursue a further motion which must be accompanied by a separate statement reflecting the then current status of any discovery disputes, including in that separate statement as to each request and response any applicable language of the Order and Notice. 

It does not appear from the file that the parties have yet entered into a protective order.  The court notes that if either party requires a protective order, the procedures are addressed in the Order, at section 2, subdivision (k), above.   The entry of such a protective order should make it unnecessary for the parties to assert any objections that the discovery seeks confidential, proprietary or trade secret information.  

 RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant General Motors, LLC’s Person Most Qualified is GRANTED. 

Defendant General Motors LLC is ordered to designate and produce witness(es) to appear for deposition and to give testimony on a mutually convenient date and time as to the matters requested in Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Deposition of the Person Most Qualified for General Motors, LLC and Demand to Produce Documents at Deposition served on July 9, 2024, no later than December 20, 2024, limited to the following five designated categories of information, plus deposition of the PMK as to why the subject vehicle was not repurchased.

1. ___________________________.

2. ___________________________.

3. ___________________________.

4. ___________________________.

5. ___________________________.

Good cause appearing, the deponent(s) is (are) also ordered to produce for inspection at the deposition any and all materials described in the subject notice which are consistent with this Court’s Standing Order Re Discovery (Song-Beverly Litigation), signed and entered by the Court on January 24, 2023 as revised, signed and entered on January 11, 2024, as well as materials which are consistent with this Court’s Notice to All Counsel Re: Lemon Law Cases for Department D, Customary Rulings Re Document Requests (Song Beverly Litigation). 

If a party believes any of the information requested should be subject to a protective order, that party shall serve and file a proposed protective order within 5 days of this Order and the parties shall meet and confer as to agreeable language for the same.  The default will be the standard Protective Order provided by the LASC in its website.

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE 

AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances.  However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. 

If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.