Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case 21STCV31115 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs William Burns and Terri Burns (jointly, “Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant General Motors, LLC (“GM”) on August 23, 2021. The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act, (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act, and (3) fraudulent inducement - concealment. On February 14, 2022, the Court issued an Order sustaining GM’s demurrer to the

third cause of action (fraudulent inducement – concealment), without leave to amend.

Plaintiffs allege that they purchased a new 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 on or about July 18, 2019 (the “Subject Vehicle”), which is manufactured by GM. (Compl., ¶¶ 5, 58.) Plaintiffs allege that notwithstanding GM’s four attempts to repair the Subject Vehicle, Plaintiffs continue to experience transmission issues caused by a defective transmission in the Subject Vehicle. (Compl., ¶ 38.)

On October 7, 2021, Plaintiffs served a Notice of Deposition of GM’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”), with Production of Documents (the “Deposition Notice”). (Kim Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) The Deposition Notice included document requests for 25 categories of documents. (Ibid.) The Deposition Notice noticed the deposition of GM’s PMK for October 21, 2021. (Ibid.)

On October 14, 2021, GM served objections to the Deposition Notice. (Kim Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 2.) On October 21, 2021, neither defense counsel nor its PMK appeared at the deposition.

(Kim Decl., ¶ 5.) Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for GM sent meet and confer correspondence regarding GM’s objections. (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, Exs. 3-4.) On March 23, 2022, counsel for Plaintiffs attempted to telephonically meet and confer with counsel for GM regarding GM’s objections and refusal to provide deposition dates for its PMK, and left a voicemail requesting a return call. (Kim Decl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs’ counsel did not receive a response to his request. (Kim Decl., ¶ 8.)

On July 5, 2022 the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) regarding the discovery dispute. (Kim Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. 5.) The Court’s July 5, 2022 minute order provides, inter alia, that “[t]he parties have fulfilled their IDC obligation for the subject issues identified in plaintiff’s IDC statement dated 06/21/22. Plaintiff has until 08/05/22 to file any motions to compel/motions to compel further responses regarding those issues.”[1]

Plaintiffs now move for an order compelling GM to produce its PMK for deposition, as well as to produce the documents identified in the Deposition Notice. No opposition to the motion was filed.

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230[2], without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

The Court finds that a proper deposition notice was served on GM. Although GM served a timely objection to the Deposition Notice, the Court finds that the GM’s objections are not well-taken except as to information regarding vehicles outside of the State of California, especially in light of the fact that GM did not file an opposition to the instant motion. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause for production of the documents described in the Deposition Notice except as to vehicles outside of the State of California. Plaintiffs demonstrate that the documents sought are related to Plaintiffs’ allegations in the Complaint and the Subject Vehicle.

In light of the above and in light of the lack of any opposition by GM, the Court grants the motion to compel the deposition of GM’s PMK except as to information regarding vehicles outside of the State of California, and including the document production, except as to documents regarding vehicles outside the State of California.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of GM’s PMK is granted with the limitation noted above. The Court orders GM to produce its PMK to appear for deposition at a date, time, and location to be determined by Plaintiffs, subject to GM’s availability. To that end, GM is ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiffs within 10 days of the date of this Order to set a mutually agreeable date for the deposition.

The Court also orders GM to produce documents in its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to Requests Nos. 1-25 in the Deposition Notice at said deposition, as limited by the Court to exclude documents regarding vehicles outside the State of California.

[1]Plaintiffs’ June 21, 2022 IDC statement indicates that Plaintiffs seek dates for the deposition of GM’s PMK witness.

[2]Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230 provides, “[i]f the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.”

WILLIAM BURNS, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, et al., Defendants.	Case No.:	21STCV31115
	Hearing Date:	September 7, 2022
	Hearing Time:	10:00 a.m.
	[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE, WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50