Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV01224, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01224    Hearing Date: October 8, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 10-8-24 c/f 7-22-24

Case # 23STCV01224

Trial Date: 9-9-24

DEPOSITION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Catalina Michelle

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion Compel the Deposition of Person Most Qualified

SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 12, 2022, Plaintiff Catalina Michelle entered into a “warranty contract regaring a 2022 Honda HR-V” vehicle. Plaintiff alleges the vehicle suffered from a number of unspecified defects.

On January 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of express warranty – Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and breach of implied warranty - Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Defendant answered on April 3, 2023.

RULING: Granted in Part (6, 14)/Denied in Part (numbers 8-12, 15 and 19).

Plaintiff Catalina Michelle moves to compel the deposition of the person most qualified (PMQ) on 25 categories of inquiry, and 16 requests for production. Plaintiff served a notice of deposition for the PMQ, and attempted to meet and confer, but alleges Defendant refuses to produce witness(es) and objects to the categories. Defendant in opposition states that Plaintiff unilaterally selected dates, attests to producing a number of documents already, failed to adequately meet and confer before filing the instant motion. Defendant reiterates its objections on to certain items as overbroad. Finally, Defendant maintains the court should refrain from imposing sanctions. Plaintiff in reply states that the motion remains necessary, because Defendant has yet to actually produce the PMQ(s) for the promised subject areas, and the requests directly relate to the elements of the action.

A party may file a motion to compel deposition upon a non-appearance of 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 finds the meet and confer sufficient. [Declaration of Harita Nandivada.]

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 established certain discovery standards based on the fundamental basis for Song-Beverly Act claims. Under the Song-Beverly Act, “[a] plaintiff pursuing an action under the Act has the burden to prove that (1) the vehicle had a nonconformity covered by the express warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle (the nonconformity element); (2) the vehicle was presented to an authorized representative of the manufacturer of the vehicle for repair (the presentation element); and (3) the manufacturer or his representative did not repair the nonconformity after a reasonable number of repair attempts (the failure to repair element). (Civ.Code, § 1793.2; Ibrahim v. Ford Motor Co. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 878, 886–887, 263 Cal.Rptr. 64.)” (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.)

The court adheres to a discovery approach allowing inquiry into the relevant make and model year for all impacted systems or parts, without opening the door for a general inquiry into any and all lemon law claims filed against vehicle manufacturers for all makes and models, including varying individual and potential system defects. The goal strives for a goal of facilitating robust adjudication of the case on the subject vehicle, thereby allowing Plaintiff the opportunity to investigate, without imposing any burden on defendant to determine the cause of the purported defect(s).

The court established this policy based on established practice standards common among counsel in this field based on standards established and reviewed by practice and reviewed at least in party by appellate courts. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 153-154; Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1104-1105.) The court in no way doctrinally adheres to this policy. No doubt other courts may take different approaches. The court in no way seeks to invite comparisons with other courtrooms. The court only notes its reasoning behind its policy to experienced counsel.

Plaintiff identifies the categories of documents as follows: (1) vehicle purchase, repairs, warranty claims, and warranty coverage (categories nos. 1-4, 18; request for production nos. 1, 7-9, 16 and 17); (2) Plaintiff’s request for repurchase (categories nos. 5-9; 11-14, 19; request for production nos. 2-4 and 6); (3) Defendant’s policy and procedures regarding repurchases and customer complaints (categories nos. 16, 19-21; request for production nos. 5, 10, 12-14); (4) investigations into the cause of Plaintiff’s complaints and defects in the Subject Vehicle (categories nos. 1-10, 25) and instances and occurrences regarding the same or similar defects that Plaintiff’s vehicle experienced (categories nos. 21-23).

Given the lack of any actual identification of any defect in the operative complaint or motion, however, the court finds any and all requests generally addressing all model years, all policies, all personnel, overbroad. On document production, to the extent Honda previously produced the records, the court finds no basis for again compelling production. Any documents not produced shall be limited to make, model and year on the remainder, with the right to object at the time of deposition as to any item.

Even without specific identifying defects, certain requests are in fact carefully limited, or can be limited, to the vehicle make, model, year itself, and therefore fall within the scope of the Song-Beverly Act provisions under the court’s preferred discovery path. The court finds the deposition inquiry and document request categories relevant to the standards for a Song-Beverly Act claim, including policies and procedures for buybacks, consumer complaints, and warranty claims, relevant when limited to the subject vehicle, year, model and make, including categories Depo 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, and 25, and Docs 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 17.

Nevertheless, a number of the categories are either improperly expansive and beyond the scope of discovery for this court, including depo category numbers 5, 7-10, and 13-24, and document production numbers 3, 5, 6, and 10-16. The court declines to provide an open ended basis of discovery into general policy, procedures, and methods into each and every vehicle manufactured by Honda simply based on the claim of a single vehicle with unspecified defects. The court also declines to provide an open ended inquiry into the identification of every single person potentially involved in the review of the subject vehicle or other vehicles. Still, even with said facially overbroad requests, the court agrees that limitation to make, mode, year, operative defects, and relevant non-privileged personnel responsible for decision making on the vehicle and/or documents on the subject matter, remains discoverable, subject to a further meet and confer effort. Honda agrees to engage in further meet and confer process, and the court expects the parties to cooperate.

The motion is therefore granted in order to insure the PMQ deposition(s) occur(s), along with relevant documents production allowing the timely completion of the deposition. The court orders the parties to meet and confer within the next 5 days in order to agree upon a mutually convenient deposition date(s) of the PMQ(s) to occur within the next 15 days, pursuant to the presented guidelines. 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 and/or production. Such a motion may lead to a trial continuance with an additional setting of an OSC for referral to a discovery referee in order to conduct a supervised deposition, and/or further document responses with authority to make privilege determinations, as well as the right to award sanctions in favor of the prevailing party.

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

September 9, 2024, trial date to stand.

Moving party to give notice.