Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00044000-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 19, 2023

10/20/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00044000-CU-BC-CTL HUNTER VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF ANDREW HUNTER OLIVER'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PERSON MOST KNOWLEGEABLE FOR DEFENDANT'S GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,885 is GRANTED, in part.

General Motors LLC ('Defendant') first argues Plaintiff's meet and confer efforts were insufficient. Under CCP section 2025.450(b)(2), Plaintiff is required to submit a declaration stating 'facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion,' where the deponent did not already fail 'to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040(b)(2); Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) Whether or not Defendant's PMK failed to attend a deposition, Plaintiff's declaration as to meet and confer efforts is deficient. The declaration of Aaron Fhima cites two letters that were sent seeking to set the PMK deposition. Plaintiff does not state 'facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion,' especially in light of Defendant's objections to the deposition notice. Plaintiff does not mention any specific category of the deposition notice to which Defendant asserted objections. However, Defendant is not blameless. Defendant left Plaintiff's request to meet and confer unanswered. The Court exhorts the parties to meet and confer in the future so as to avoid the need for motion work.

As this Court has noted in previous orders involving Defendant's counsel, the Court finds Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967 and Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, support the proposition that information pertaining to similar defects in other vehicles can be relevant. While some of the categories may be broad, Defendant fails to demonstrate they are too broad and/or that the production would be unduly burdensome. Defendant fails to quantify the amount of effort Defendant would need to make to produce the records and PMK as to the categories in the deposition notice.

Defendant asserts information concerning other consumers and their vehicle is not relevant. Defendant has 'an affirmative duty to replace a vehicle or make restitution' if it is 'unable to repair the new vehicle after a reasonable number of repair attempts.' (Lukather v. General Motors, LLC (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1050.) A manufacturer's failure to comply with is statutory duty potentially subjects it to civil penalties. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (c).) If Defendant's failure to 'replace or refund was the result of a good faith and reasonable belief the facts imposing the statutory obligation were not present,' then it is not considered a willful violation and it is not liable for civil penalties. (Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 185.) Evidence of Defendant's awareness of the prevalence of Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2975903 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HUNTER VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00044000-CU-BC-CTL defects in other similar vehicles and its response to same are relevant to determine whether Defendant acted reasonably in refusing to repurchase the vehicle in light of such awareness.

Defendants also claim the production seeks trade secret material. Defendant fails to provide any evidence to support this assertion. Further, Defendant has the burden to file a motion for protective order as to trade secrets. (See Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 318.) The Court cannot determine the validity of trade secret claims in the absence of any supporting evidence. Defendant has not filed a motion for a protective order nor a supporting declaration.

Defendant does not cite authority for the proposition that its objection is proper in this context in the absence of a motion for protective order. (See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23.) Defendant has not demonstrated its objections are valid. Rather than force the parties to continue to meet and confer under these circumstances, especially given Defendant is willing to produce a PMK as to three of the categories, the Court orders Defendant to produce its person most knowledgeable for deposition within 20 court days as to all the categories in the deposition notice. No sanctions are awarded.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2975903