Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV17097, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17097    Hearing Date: August 30, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     August 30, 2023                     TRIAL DATE: October 31, 2023

CASE:                         Noemi Corria v. General Motors, LLC

CASE NO.:                 22STCV17097           

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Noemi Corria

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant General Motors, LLC

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a lemon law action filed on May 4, 2022. Plaintiff purchased a new 2019 Chevrolet Silverado which was delivered with serious structural and electrical system defects.

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable and for production of documents at that deposition.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to designate and produce its person most knowledgeable to testify as to all categories identified in Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Deposition within 20 days of this order.

Defendant is also ordered to produce all documents responsive to the requests for production accompanying the Amended Notice of Deposition within 20 days of this order.

//

//

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable and for production of documents at that deposition.

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a) provides:

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, 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.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a).)

Meet and Confer

A motion to compel a deposition must include a meet and confer declaration stating facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.450(b); 2016.040.) 

            Attorney Nicholas Yowarski, counsel for Plaintiff, states that he sent a single meet and confer letter on April 18, 2023, with the Amended Deposition Notice that is the subject of this motion. (Declaration of Nicholas Yowarski ISO Mot. ¶¶ 19, 22.) This is not sufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s statutory meet-and-confer obligations, especially when the objections raised here were not served until May 5, 2023. (Id. ¶ 20, Exh. 7.) Nevertheless, in the interest of facilitating a speedy resolution of this dispute, the Court will consider the motion on its merits.

Deposition Testimony

            Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to designate a person most knowledgeable to speak on 34 separate categories of testimony and produce that person for deposition. Broadly summarized, these categories include communications, repairs, and services concerning Plaintiff’s vehicle; policies and procedures governing and investigations pertaining to Defendant’s handling of Plaintiff’s repair and buyback requests; Defendant’s relationship, ownership, and guidance for its customer support hotline and the personnel at that hotline with the authority to offer a buyback; facts pertaining to Plaintiff’s buyback requests generally, and any filings, discovery responses, or documents produced in this action. (See Plaintiff’s Exh. 5, Amended Notice of Deposition.)

            In response to the amended deposition notice, served April 18, 2023, Defendant served a series of boilerplate objections and categorically refused to produce a witness for 16 of the 34 categories, claiming the requests are vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, oppressive, invade the attorney client privilege and work product doctrine, and are not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence because it is not limited merely to the subject vehicle. (See generally Plaintiff’s Exh. 7.) Defendant also objected on the basis that the categories sought confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. (Id.) Further, Defendant has, to date, not provided a witness for deposition. (Yowarski Decl. ¶ 23.)

            Defendant, in opposition, stands on these objections, reciting broad proclamations from Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court concerning discovery overreach without any meaningful attempt to apply that holding to the facts here. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.) Defendant also asserts—again without evidence or even explanation—that the deposition categories seek confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets.

            Defendant’s contentions concerning these boilerplate objections are not persuasive. Evidence of Defendant’s policy and practices concerning vehicle buyback requests in general is not only discoverable but admissible evidence. (See, e.g., Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, 1198-99.) Further, it is well-settled that, in Song-Beverly actions, evidence concerning not only Plaintiff’s vehicle but other vehicles of the same year, make, and model is both relevant and admissible. (Donlen v. Ford (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143-44, 153; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973, 978-79, 986.) Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling production of a person most knowledgeable for deposition concerning these categories.

Requests for Production

            Plaintiff also seeks to compel, at deposition, production of seventeen categories of documents.

Where production of documents is sought in connection with the deposition, the motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(b)(1).) These facts must also be set forth in a separate statement filed by the moving party. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

At issue in this motion are seventeen categories of documents concerning, again summarized broadly, communications regarding the subject vehicle, documents evidencing the deponent’s job description, documents reviewed in determining Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s buyback requests, documents relied upon to prepare for the deposition, documents concerning Defendant’s policies and procedures for handling vehicle buybacks and determining its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act, technical service bulletins for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle, and any documents that support Defendant’s affirmative Defenses. (Plaintiff’s Exh. 5. pp.8-9.) Good cause for production of these documents is apparent based on the claims asserted in the Complaint. Most of the categories sought either directly pertain to the allegations in the Complaint or to Defendant’s Answer, or to the deponent’s knowledge. Request No. 16, which pertains specifically to Technical Service Bulletins pertaining to vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle, are also admissible under well-established case law. (Donlen v. Ford (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143-44, 153; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973, 978-79, 986.)

In opposition, Defendant asserts the same objections and arguments as those raised with respect to the deposition categories. For the reasons above, the Court finds Defendant’s arguments unpersuasive. Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling production of these documents.  

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to designate and produce its person most knowledgeable to testify as to all categories identified in Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Deposition within 20 days of this order.

Defendant is also ordered to produce all documents responsive to the requests for production accompanying the Amended Notice of Deposition within 20 days of this order.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2023                                  ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.