Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21CHCV00296, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00296    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 9-22-22 c/f 9-8-22

Case #21CHCV00296

Trial Date: 1-17-23

MOTION TO COMPEL

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Alejandro Rodriguez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, General Motors, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On April 22, 2017, Plaintiff Alejandro Rodriguez purchased a 2017 Chevy Silverado 1500 vehicle manufactured by Defendant General Motors, LLC. Plaintiff alleges the vehicle suffers from a number of defects in the engine, transmission, tire pressure monitoring system, and braking system. According to Plaintiff, Defendant has been unsuccessfully able to repair the defects.

On April 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for Violation of Civil Code sections 1791.1, 1791.2, 1793.2, and 1794, and Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability. On May 19, 2021, Defendant answered the complaint.

RULING: Granted as to PMQ for Categories 1-4, 7 & 10/Denied as to Documents and Remaining Categories.

Plaintiff Alejandro Rodriguez moves to compel the deposition of the person most qualified (PMQ) on four identified areas of inquiry—subject vehicle records, including repair history; documents produced by defendant; warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, procedures and practices; and, internal investigation and analysis of the powertrain defect(s). Plaintiff served the deposition notices, but contends defendant refuses to cooperate in the setting of a mutually convenient date.

Defendant General Motors (GM) in opposition maintains it will present a PMQ for certain categories of discovery, but otherwise challenges discovery into areas “beyond the scope of this simple breach of warranty claim.” GM also challenges the lack of any meet and confer effort, and lack of a separate statement.

Plaintiff in reply denies the motion seeks any production of documents and only seeks a PMQ deposition appearance. Plaintiff maintains a good faith meet and confer effort. Plaintiff emphasizes that even with the objections, GM still agrees to produce a PMQ for certain categories of documents. Plaintiff denies any requirement for a separate statement.

A party may file a motion to compel deposition upon a non-appearance or refusal to proceed by  the noticed party. (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (a).) A party must present a qualified person for each deposition. (Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1398.)

GM agrees to produce a witness for categories 1-4, 7 and 10, with objections to numbers 5-6, 8-9, and 11-19. It remains unclear whether actual documents will be produced as well. Regardless, the court addresses the motion, at least in part, as one to compel production of all sought after categories.

While the parties dispute whether the motion actually seeks production of documents or not, consideration of the documents is relevant in that the depositions are indexed to the document categories. GM objected to at least some of said production. [Declaration of Sean Crandall, Ex. 2-3.] To the extent consideration of document production is required, the court finds the meet and confer effort, while brief, sufficient. [Crandall Dec., Ex. 6.] Nevertheless, a separate statement is required to compel production of documents at a deposition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5).) The motion lacks any such statement.

While the court acknowledges Plaintiff’s reliance on a prior ruling regarding a ruling on discovery, the court finds said summary will not relieve Plaintiff of the motion requirements to effectively compel further production for purposes of the PMQ deposition in all sought after categories. The motion is therefore denied as to any and all demands associated with document production.

Even considering the merits, the court declines to infer certain positions on the right to discovery. GM raises valid arguments regarding discovery into areas not related to the warranty claim, as well as a trade secret/proprietary information claims, which require specific address under the applicable legal standards.

The motion otherwise lacks any basis for denial of the motion as to the agreed upon categories—numbers 1-4, 7 and 10. Again, it remains unclear whether documents will be produced or not, but given Plaintiff denies any sought after production, the depositions can occur on the agreed upon categories.

The court therefore orders the parties to meet and confer within the next 10 days in order to agree upon a mutually convenient deposition date(s) of the PMQ(s) to occur within the next 30 days. If the parties are unable to agree upon dates and locations, Plaintiff may unilaterally set a date within 5 days of the lapsed meet and confer period. If Defendant agrees upon a date and fails to present a witness, or if Defendant fails to appear for the unilaterally set date, the court will consider a motion for evidentiary, issue and/or terminating sanctions.

The motion is denied as to the remainder of the categories and ALL document production, if applicable.

Sanctions are not requested.

January 17, 2023 trial date to stand.

Plaintiff to give notice.