MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs SEDA AMIRPANOUSH and VARAND NAHAPEDSIRAKI  

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant KIA AMERICA, INC. 

Motion to Compel Deposition  

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  

BACKGROUND 

On October 29, 2022, Plaintiffs purchased a 2023 Kia Seltos, having VIN No.: KNDEU2AAXP7397604 ("the Subject Vehicle”). The instant action was filed on September 25, 2023, seeking relief for, among other claims, Defendant’s breach of the express written warranty; Defendant’s breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; Defendant’s failure to repair or adequately compensate Plaintiffs for the Subject Vehicle; Defendant’s failure to commence and/or complete repairs within 30 days; and more generally, Defendant’s violation of the Song-Beverly Act. (Sogoyan Decl. ¶ 15.) 

On January 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel. Defendant did not file an opposition.  

LEGAL STANDARD 

“The service of a deposition notice…is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action…to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §2025.280(a).¿ 

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party (or a witness designated on behalf of such party) fails to appear for deposition, the party seeking the deposition may move to compel the deposition. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a).¿ 

DISCUSSION 

This motion must contain either a meet and confer declaration, or a declaration “stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b).)¿ 

Plaintiff’s counsel attests that he has made informal attempts to schedule a deposition by sending meet and confer letters to Defendant’s counsel. (Id. at ¶ 19.) The Court finds that the meet and confer requirement was satisfied.¿¿ 

On December 5, 2023, Plaintiffs served a Notice of Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable clearly detailing 73 Matters for Examination requested and containing 39 clearly written Requests for Production of Documents for the deposition, that was properly noticed for December 19, 2023. (Sogoyan ¶ 17.) On December 14, 2023, Defendant served its objections to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”), wherein Defendant refused to produce a PMK witness as properly noticed. (Id. at ¶ 18.) On December 15, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant’s counsel regarding the Notice of Deposition of Defendant´s Person Most Knowledgeable that Plaintiffs properly noticed to take place. Plaintiffs´ counsel explained the importance and validity of this discovery, providing both statutory authority and case law to support this position. Defendant did not respond to this letter or the deposition notice, and Defendant did not produce a PMK witness for this deposition as noticed. Furthermore, no reasonable alternative PMK deposition dates have yet been offered by Defendant´s counsel. (Id. at ¶ 19.) As of March 26, 2024, Defendant has not filed an opposition.