Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00680, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00680    Hearing Date: November 30, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 11-30-23

Case #22CHCV00680

Trial Date: Not Set

DEPOSITION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Ashley Elliott

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, General Motors, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel the Deposition of the Person Most Qualified

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On May 2, 2022, plaintiff Ashley Elliott purchased a 2022 Chevrolet Corvette vehicle manufactured by Defendant General Motors, LLC. Plaintiff alleges the vehicle suffers from a number of defects.

On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of the Express Warranty, and Breach of the Implied Warranty. On October 18, 2023, Defendant answered the complaint.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Ashley Elliott moves to compel the deposition of the person most qualified (PMQ) for General Motors (GM), and production of documents pursuant to the deposition notice. GM in opposition asserts the motion comes without a sufficient meet and confer effort, Plaintiff seeks irrelevant and/or privileged testimony, GM already agreed to produce a PMQ for deposition, and the court should not award any sanctions. Plaintiff in reply maintains its efforts to secure the deposition for “almost 11 months,” and GM continues to engage in a steadfast effort to delay discovery. Plaintiff reiterates the request for sanctions.

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.)

The court first notes that while the motion was only reserved as a motion to compel the deposition of a PMQ, the motion effectively constitutes a preemptive motion to compel further testimony and/or a counter motion for protective order. Given the increasing volume of filed Lemon Law cases and subsequent increase of motions, presumably at least in part prompted by the lack of arbitration clause enforcement pending California Supreme Court review, the court will not consider any preemptive scope of testimony parameters unless and until the deposition takes place. GM agrees to produce a witness for at least certain of inquiries. The motion to compel the appearance is therefore granted in order to ensure the deposition takes place with no other conditions or guidance.

The court orders the parties to meet and confer within the next 20 calendar days in order to agree upon a mutually convenient deposition date(s) of the PMQ(s) to occur within the next 45 days. Again, the court will neither preemptively determine the validity of any objections or issue a protective order on an unmade motion. Defendant may assert any privilege objections at the time of the deposition, as it deems required. An excessive amount of objections and/or termination of the deposition may allow Plaintiff to file a motion to compel further deposition testimony. Such a motion may lead to the setting of an OSC for referral to a discovery referee in order to conduct a supervised deposition, or the imposition an order compelling further responses with sanctions in favor of the prevailing party. The parties may alternatively agree on a discovery referee ahead of time following the deposition, if the parties are unable to agree to sufficient parameters during the deposition and require subsequent guidance and supervision.

Sanctions are not imposed given the parties agreement to conduct the deposition, the lack of any actual deposition non-appearance and incurrence of costs, the otherwise overbroad request in the motion based on premature, preemptive efforts regarding the scope of the questions. (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Plaintiff to give notice.