Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 22GDCV01112, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV01112    Hearing Date: November 19, 2024    Dept: V

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiffs ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ and EDGAR MONTENEGRO

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply. 

BACKGROUND

            This is a Song-Beverly Act action. Plaintiffs Alejandro Sanchez and Edgar Montenegro filed the complaint against defendant Ford Motor Company on December 27, 2022 alleging the following causes of action: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty; (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty; and (3) violation of the Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2. Plaintiffs allege that on February 24, 2022, they purchased a 2021 Ford EcoSport (subject vehicle). Plaintiffs allege the subject vehicle was delivered with defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed further defects and nonconformities to warranty, including, electrical, transmission, structural, and suspension system defects.

            Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on October 18, 2024. Defendant filed its opposition on November 5, 2024. Plaintiffs filed their reply on November 12, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party may obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) 

Code of Civil Procedure section¿2025.450(a) provides:¿“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . , 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 . . . 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 . . . described in the deposition notice.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a).) 

Code of Civil Procedure section¿2025.450(b) provides:¿“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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(b).) 

 DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs move for an order striking defendant’s objections as to the Matters for Examination and to compel the testimony of defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) for all Matters for Examination requested in plaintiffs’ second amended notice of PMK deposition; and striking all of defendant’s request for production objections, and compelling defendant to produce all responsive documents requested in plaintiffs’ second amended notice of PMK deposition.

            On April 13, 2023, plaintiffs served a notice of deposition of defendant’s PMK detailing 34 matters for examination and including 16 requests for production of documents, noticed for May 5, 2023, to which plaintiffs received no objection. (Decl. of Gregory Sogoyan, ¶ 20; Exh. 3.) On May 1, 2023, plaintiffs served an amended notice of deposition noticed for May 29, 2023. (Decl. of Gregory Sogoyan, ¶ 21; Exh. 4.) On May 24, 2023, defendant served its objections to each matter for examination and request for production of documents. (Decl. of Gregory Sogoyan, ¶ 22; Exh. 5.) On August 13, 2024, plaintiffs served a second amended notice of deposition detailing 84 matters for examination and 86 requests for production of documents, noticed for August 29, 2024, to which plaintiffs did not receive objections. (Decl. of Gregory Sogoyan, ¶ 23; Exh. 6.)

A.    Meet and Confer

On August 13, 2023, plaintiffs’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter to defendant’s counsel regarding the amended notice of deposition, seeking alternative dates for the PMK deposition. (Decl. of Gregory Sogoyan, ¶ 24; Exh. 7.) On October 9, 2024, plaintiffs’ counsel sent defendant’s counsel an email requesting alterative dates for the deposition by October 18, 2024. (Decl. of Gregory Sogoyan, ¶ 25; Exh. 8.) Defendant’s counsel states that on October 16, 2024, counsel replied to plaintiffs’ meet and confer letters of September 23 and October 9, however, defendant’s counsel’s email was about its responses to plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents, set two, stating that defendant had complied with Judge Hofer’s case management conference order. (Decl. of Cindy L. Mijangos, ¶ 10; Exh. 6.) On October 17, 2024, defendant’s counsel stated their PMK would be available on February 4, 2025, which is a date past the discovery deadline. (Decl. of Gregory Sogoyan, ¶ 25; Exh. 8.) The court finds that an exchange of letters is not sufficient to satisfy the meet and confer requirement. Accordingly, the court orders the parties to meet and confer.

B.     Separate Statements

Defendant argues that plaintiffs only provided a separate statement for the requests for production of documents, but not for the matters for examination. Under California Rules of Court rule 3.1345 subdivision (a), a motion to compel a PMK to appear for deposition to address the matters for examination is not a motion that requires a separate statement. Accordingly, plaintiffs did not need to provide a separate statement for the matters for examination.

Plaintiffs’ separate statement, however, does not address the requests for production of documents in plaintiffs’ second amended notice of PMK deposition, but rather they appear to correspond to plaintiffs’ amended notice of PMK deposition. Accordingly, the separate statement is deficient.

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES the motion to compel the deposition of defendant’s person most knowledgeable and production of documents.

The court orders the parties to meet and confer in person or by video conference.