Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV40654, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40654    Hearing Date: June 20, 2023    Dept: 31

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance and request for sanctions is DENIED.

Background

On November 04, 2022, Ruben Tapia Gonzalez and Maria Valdez (collectively “Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 10 for violations of the Song-Beverly Act (the “Act”).

On November 30, 2022, the Court GRANTED IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition and Attendance of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable and Custodian of Records.

On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion compelling Defendant to comply with the Court’s November 30, 2022 Order.

Defendant filed opposing papers on June 06, 2021.

Plaintiff filed a reply on June 12, 2023.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320 sets forth the conditions to make a motion to compel compliance with an inspection demand. That section provides:

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling … thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320(a).) The Civil Discovery Act places no time limit on such motions. (Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903.)

The Court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320(b).)

Discussion

Plaintiff filed this Motion on February 14, 2023, asserting that Defendant has not produced a PMQ in violation of the November 30, 2022 Order.

Defendant’s opposition asserts that Plaintiff’s Motion is moot because the deposition of its PMK took place on March 30, 2023. In support of this statement, Defendant submitted the Declaration of Defense Counsel, Cameron Major, asserting under penalty of perjury that:

“On November 30, 2022, the parties appeared before the Court for hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. The Court ordered the deposition(s) to take place by February 1, 2023. (Bissman Decl. Ex. A). GM completed the deposition of its PMK with Plaintiff’s counsel on March 30, 2023. Plaintiff’s Motion is therefore moot.”

(Major Decl. ¶ 7.)

In its reply papers, Plaintiff asserts that “To date, Defendant has not produced a PMQ.” (Reply at 1:20.) Plaintiff failed to submit a declaration asserting that no deposition of Defendant’s PMQ took place and in reply, failed to address Defendant’s contention that deposition of the PMQ had already taken place.

In the absence of evidence showing that Defendant failed to comply with the November 30, 2022 Order, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion and request for sanctions.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance and request for sanctions is DENIED.