Oscar Hernandez v. Nissan North America, Inc.

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Oscar Hernandez 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Oscar Hernandez bring this action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act against Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. Plaintiff alleges his vehicle exhibited powertrain system defects, engine defects, engine electronics system defects, electrical defects, recalls, and other serious nonconformities to warranty.

Plaintiff now moves to compel the deposition attendance and production of documents by Defendant’s PMK. Defendant opposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s PMK is GRANTED. Defendant’s PMK is ordered to appear for deposition within 60-days of this ruling.

Defendant’s objections to Category Nos. 3-6 and 9 are OVERRULED.   The objection to Category 7 is SUSTAINED as too overbroad.

Plaintiff to give notice, unless waived.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Deposition

I. Legal Standard

Where, as here, a party deponent has not appeared for his or her deposition, CCP § 2025.450 applies:

(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 under Section 2025.230, 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.

(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.

(CCP § 2025.450(a),(b) [emphasis added].)

II. Analysis

Plaintiff Oscar Hernandez moves to for an order compelling Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. to produce its Person Most Knowledgeable. Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Defendant’s PMK on June 7, 2023 and sought Defendant’s documents relating to this case. (Daghighian Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. B.) Defendant did not produce its PMK for deposition, and instead, served “boilerplate objections” to the deposition notice. (Mtn. 3: 15.)

In opposition, Defendant first contends the motion is moot because the parties have agreed to a deposition date in November. Defendant also argues the motion should be denied because Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer regarding Defendant’s objections. Finally, Defendant argues its objections are proper because the subpoena seeks testimony that is overly broad, irrelevant, and presumptively privileged. 

First, although the parties have rescheduled the deposition date, Defendant still stands by its objections. Therefore, this motion is not moot.

Second, Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer are without merit. Defendant concedes that “a series of meet and confer letters were exchanged between counsel” regarding the deposition. (Opp. 3: 2-3.) Nothing more is required. 

Finally, at issue here are Nissan’s objections to Matters Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 in the deposition notice, which Nissan contends are “overly broad and irrelevant” because they are “unlimited in time and/or not limited to Plaintiff, the subject vehicle, or the allegations at issue in this case.” (Opp. 5: 18-20.) 

Upon review, except as noted herein, the Matters Numbers at issue are adequately tailored to Plaintiff’s vehicle, or more generally, to Defendant’s policies and procedures for compliance with the Song-Beverly Act. (See Separate Statement, Matters 3 – 7, 9.) The Matters are plainly relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint, and at minimum, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (CCP § 2017.010.) “In the absence of privilege, the right to discovery in this state is a broad one, to be construed liberally so that parties may ascertain the strength of their case and at trial the truth may be determined.”  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 538.) Therefore, Defendant’s objections to Category Nos. 3-6 and 9 are OVERRULED.   The objection to Category No. 7 is SUSTAINED as too overbroad.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s PMK is GRANTED. Defendant’s PMK is ordered to appear for deposition within 60-days of this ruling.

III. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(g)(1), provides that, “[i]f a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanction unjust.” 

Here, the court declines a sanction, finding Defendant acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanction unjust.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   September 25, 2023 ___________________________________