Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV36052, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV36052 Hearing Date: February 8, 2024 Dept: 50
|
MAJED ELAAWAR, Plaintiff, vs. general motors, llc, et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: |
21STCV36052 |
|
Hearing Date: |
February 8, 2024 |
|
|
Hearing
Time: 10:00
a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER
RE: PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’S PERSON MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE |
||
Background
Plaintiff Majed Elaawar
(“Plaintiff”) filed this action on September 30, 2021 against Defendant General
Motors, LLC (“GM”). Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on
March 15, 2022, asserting causes of action for (1) violation of subdivision (d)
of Civil Code section 1793.2, (2) violation of
subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2, (3) violation
of subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2, (4)
breach of express written warranty, (5) breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, and (6) fraudulent inducement – concealment.
Plaintiff now moves “for
an order striking [GM’s]
objections and compelling [GM]
to produce a Person(s) Most Knowledgeable…witness for the categories identified
in Plaintiff’s First Amended Notice of Deposition of the Person Most
Knowledgeable for [GM].” It does not appear that an opposition to the motion
was filed.
Discussion
As an initial matter, the
Court notes that it does not appear that any opposition to the instant motion
was filed. However, on February 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Reply to
Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of the
Person Most Knowledgeable for General Motors, LLC…” Plaintiff’s reply references an opposition. (See
Reply at pp. 7:28-8:1, “[i]n its Opposition, Defendant claims
Plaintiff’s categories ‘invites production of trade secret material.’ (Opp. at
p. 6:16-7:2).” Thus, it appears that an opposition may have been served.
The Court also notes that on January 26, 2024, GM filed a “Memorandum
of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Set, One” and a “Declaration
of Alexandria O. Pappas in Support of General Motors LLC’s Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of
Documents, Set One.” However, these opposition papers do not concern
Plaintiff’s instant motion to compel the deposition of GM’s Person Most
Knowledgeable.[1]
Conclusion
In
light of the foregoing, the hearing on Plaintiff’s instant motion is
continued
to ____________, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 50. GM shall immediately file any
opposition to the instant motion that was served on Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.¿¿
DATED: February 8, 2024 ________________________________
Hon. Teresa A.
Beaudet
Judge, Los
Angeles Superior Court
[1]The docket entry
describes this filing as an opposition to the motion to compel the pmk
deposition but GM’s opposition filed on January 26, 2024 asserts that “[t]his
Court should sustain GM’s objections to Request for Production Nos. 12, 18-21,
23-25, 30, 39, 51, 53, 64, 76, 81, 83-85, and 89 on the merits.” (Opp’n at p. 9:23-24.)
The opposition papers also list a hearing date of “July 26, 2023.” It thus
appears that such opposition papers may have been incorrectly filed.