Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 24TRCV01727, Date: 2024-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV01727, Date: 2024-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV01727 Hearing Date: September 13, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: September 13, 2024

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV01727

¿¿

CASE NAME: Patricia L. Gallardo; Lucia Reynoso v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Patricia L. Gallardo and Lucia Reynoso

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant's Person Most Knowledgeable and Production of Documents

(2) Request for Mandatory Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) CONTINUED to October 4, 2024.

(2) CONTINUED but likely to be denied.

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

On May 21, 2024, Plaintiffs, Patricia L. Gallardo and Lucia Reynoso (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant, American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (“AHM”), and DOES 1 through 10. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Implied Warranty; and (3) Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200.

On June 26, 2024, Plaintiffs note that they noticed the deposition of AHM’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”). On July 8, 2024, Plaintiffs further note that Defendant served objections to the deposition. However, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant’s deposition objections contained boilerplate objections to the documents requested and topics to be discussed.

Plaintiffs note that in an effort to work together, Plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to meet and confer with Defendant on dates of availability. Plaintiffs contend that although Defendant’s objections stated that they were amenable to meet and confer on an alternative date, as of the date Plaintiffs filed this motion, Defendant and its counsel never provided any reasonable dates of availability to Plaintiffs’ counsel despite numerous attempts to informally resolve this issue.

As such, Plaintiffs have brought this Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant AHM’s PMK and Request for Production of Documents.

B. Procedural¿¿

On Augst 8, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Compel Deposition of AHM’s PMK and Request for Production of Documents. On August 30, 2024, Defendant AHM filed an opposition brief. On September 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief.

II. ANALYSIS¿

A. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) provides:

“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.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

The motion must “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition…by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (2).) A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted unless the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

B. Discussion

i. Plaintiffs’ Meet and Confer Efforts were Insufficient

Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(b)(2) requires that a motion to compel a part deponent to appear or produce documents “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.” (C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(2).) The attempt to resolve informally may be made either by conferring “in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney.” (C.C.P. §2023.010(i), [failure to make such attempt constitutes “misuse of discovery process”].)

Here, Plaintiffs note that on July 18, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested an alternative date in which to conduct the deposition of Defendant’s PMK. Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel further notes that on July 26, 2024, another follow up on dates for the deposition of Defendant’s PMK. However, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant did not respond and failed to cooperate in arranging the deposition. (Declaration of Ezra Ryu (“Ryu Decl.”), ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs contend that while Defendant’s objections stated that they were amenable to meet and confer on an alternative date, as of the date they filed this motion, Defendant nor its counsel have never provided any reasonable dates of availability to Plaintiffs’ counsel despite numerous attempts to informally resolve this issue. (Ryu Decl., ¶ 5.)

However, AHM argues that Plaintiffs motion was filed without properly meeting and conferring. AHM asserts that Plaintiffs never attempted to meet and confer regarding the categories for examination or the documents requested. Instead, AHM asserts that Plaintiffs’ meet and confer consisted of two emails, simply stating “please provide PMK dates for the end of August,” and “following up.” Shortly after that, AHM notes that Plaintiffs filed the instant motion. AHM clarifies that there was no letter, no telephone call, no meeting discussing the categories of examination, documents requested, or a deposition date.

A review of Ryu’s declaration Exhibit 3 is evidence of an insufficient “effort” to meet and confer. Although the Court understands that AHM failed to respond with alternative dates for the deposition until after the filing of this motion, that does not negate the fact that Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to meet and confer in good faith prior to filing this motion. In this motion, the Plaintiffs are requesting this Court order (1) Defendant to produce its PMK to testify to the matters described with reasonable particularity in the notice of the deposition and production of documents; (2) Defendant and its employees to appear for the deposition and produce the documents requested within ten (10) days of the motion; and (3) grant Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions. Certainly, this Court would not be inclined to grant this motion as to categories and documents that would be ordered to be produced when Plaintiffs have not even attempted to meet and confer with Defendant about what Plaintiffs describe as AHM’s “litany of boilerplate objections” to said categories and documents.

Thus, this Court CONTINUES this motion to October 4, 2024. The parties will be required to provide a status report as to the details of the parties’ meet and confer efforts, and the status of the remaining categories and documents at issue after the meet and confer efforts on or before October 2, 2024. The Court further notes that sanctions will be discussed at the continued hearing, but that because of Plaintiffs’ insufficient meet and confer effort prior to the bringing of this motion, the Court is unlikely to award Plaintiffs their requested monetary sanctions.

III. CONCLUSION¿¿

¿¿¿

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of AHM’s PMK and Request for Production of Documents is CONTINUED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.