Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 23GDCV0086, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Arvin Pairavi alleges that in August of 2022 plaintiff purchased from defendant dealer Allen Gwynn Chevrolet, Inc. (Allen Gwynn) a new 2023 Chevrolet Corvette vehicle, which was sold to plaintiff with an express warranty from the vehicle manufacturer, defendant General Motors LLC (General Motors). Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle was also sold with a statutorily implied warranty of merchantability as described in the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle has a manufacturing defect which causes the brakes to squeal excessively, that plaintiff presented the vehicle to defendant dealer on three occasions, and dealer was either unable to perform any repair or the repair performed did not resolve the defect. Plaintiff alleges that manufacturer and dealer have failed in their affirmative obligation to repurchase or replace the vehicle.

The file shows that On September 29, 2023, the court heard motions filed by plaintiff to compel responses from defendant General Motors to special interrogatories and to a request for production of documents.

The motions were denied without prejudice pursuant to this court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation) signed and entered by the court on January 24, 2023, and the parties were ordered to meet and confer in good faith concerning compliance with the order, “and to serve any further discovery, and engage in any further discovery proceedings or motions in compliance with the Order and this Minute Order.” [Minute Order, 09/29/2023, p. 5].

On April 26, 2024, the court heard another motion brought by plaintiff for an order compelling defendant General Motors, LLC to serve document production in compliance with the court’s Standing Order Re Discovery (Song Beverly Litigation). The motion was denied without prejudice for failure to comply with the Order, and the previous minute order, and failure to submit a separate statement. The court again ordered the parties to serve any further discovery and engage in further discovery proceedings in compliance with the Order, the minute order, the previous minute order, as well as with a Notice to All Counsel Re: Lemon Law Cases for Department D, entitled Customary Rulings Re Document Requests (Song Beverly Litigation), which is available on the Department D website, and indicates what the court will usually order when faced with a discovery dispute.

As previously pointed out to the parties, on more than one occasion, this matter is subject to the Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation) (Order) applicable to Song-Beverly Litigation, now posted and available on the Los Angeles Superior Court website in connection with this Department, Glendale Courthouse, Department D. The Order was originally signed by the court on January 24, 2023, and revised and again signed on January 11, 2024.

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.”

Plaintiff here does not seek the deposition of a person most knowledgeable, or experts identified by the parties, as permitted under the Order. The deposition notices are directed to specific named individual employees of defendant Allen Gwynn Chevrolet, Inc., David Diaz and Patrick Moradian.

“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.”

Here, the deponents named are not the employer entity, but natural persons, and the PMK procedure has not been invoked. There is no argument or showing that the deponents are identified experts.

“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).”

The motion does not include any stipulation permitting the subject depositions to be noticed, or any court order permitting the subject depositions to be noticed, and nothing to this effect appears in the file.

The motion accordingly is denied without prejudice to plaintiff complying with the Order, that is, meeting and conferring concerning the need for these additional depositions, and then, if necessary, filing an appropriate motion for permission to notice the subject depositions supported by a showing of good cause.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Service Advisor Patrick Moradian and Technician David Diaz, Employees of Defendant Allen Gwynn Chevrolet, Inc. is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to this Court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation), signed and entered by the Court on January 24, 2023, as and revised and again signed on January 11, 2024.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith concerning compliance with the Order, and to serve any further discovery, and engage in any further discovery proceedings or motions in compliance with the Order, as well as with this minute order. Specifically, under Section 4 of the Order, the parties must meet and confer concerning the necessity for the subject depositions, and comply with the provision of the Order which expressly requires, “Any additional depositions may only be noticed and taken by stipulation and/or court order (via motion upon showing of good cause).”

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.