Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV31022, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 22STCV31022    Hearing Date: June 6, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Alexis Quirarte Garcia

RESPONDING PARTY:        Defendant Kia America, Inc.

Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance of Person Most Qualified and Request for Production of Documents at Deposition

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Alexis Quirarte Garcia (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling defendant Kia America, Inc. (“Defendant”) (i) to produce its person most qualified for deposition, and (ii) to produce, at the deposition of its person most qualified, the documents responsive to the document demands set forth in her notice of deposition, and (2) awarding sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $2,310.

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce its person(s) most qualified to appear for and testify on its behalf at a deposition to be taken by Plaintiff as to category numbers 1-9 and 11-24.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce its person(s) most qualified to appear for and testify on its behalf at a deposition to be taken by Plaintiff as to category numbers 10 and 25, because those categories do not describe the matters on which examination is requested with reasonable particularity, as required.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230.)

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce, at the deposition of its person most qualified, documents that are responsive to requests for production of documents, numbers 1-4, 6-13, and 16-17.

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce, at the deposition of its person most qualified, documents that are responsive to requests for production of documents 5 and 14, because those requests are overbroad since they call for the production of documents or information that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce, at the deposition of its person most qualified, documents that are responsive to requests for production of documents, number 15, because that request calls for the production of documents and information that are protected by the right of privacy of Defendant’s employees.

            In light of the mixed results of the court’s ruling on this motion, the court finds that the circumstances presented make the imposition of sanctions unjust and therefore denies Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

The court denies Defendant’s request, made in its opposition papers, that the court continue trial.

The court denies Defendant’s request that the court order Plaintiff to pay the attorney’s fees incurred by Defendant to oppose this motion.

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiff Alexis Quirarte Garcia’s motion to compel deposition attendance of person most qualified and requests for production of documents as follows.

            The court orders defendant Kia America, Inc. (1) to designate and produce for deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to the matters set forth in matters for examination numbers 1-9 and 11-24 in plaintiff Alexis Quirarte Garcia’s notice of deposition, on a date to be agreed to by counsel for the parties no later than July 8, 2024, and (2) to produce at the deposition of its person most qualified the documents responsive to the requests for production of documents, numbers 1-4, 6-13, and 16-17 in plaintiff Alexis Quirarte Garcia’s notice of deposition.

            The court finds good cause to extend the discovery cutoff date and therefore orders that the discovery cutoff date is extended to July 8, 2024, for the limited purpose of allowing plaintiff Alexis Quirarte Garcia to take the deposition of defendant Kia America, Inc.’s person most qualified.

            The court orders plaintiff Alexis Quirarte Garcia to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  June 6, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court