Judge Thomas D. Long, Case 21STCV07118 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

On February 23, 2021, Plaintiff
Jessica Lemus filed this action against Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. for
breach of warranties arising from the purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle.

On
July 13, 2022, Plaintiff served a notice of deposition of Defendant’s PMK and requested
production of documents, with a deposition and production date of August 15, 2022. (Cohen Decl. ¶ 25.) On August 10, 2022, Defendant served objections. (Cohen Decl. ¶ 26 & Ex. 3.) Following meet-and-confer efforts, on September
20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK and
the production of documents. (See Cohen Decl.
¶¶ 27-29.) The parties did not first participate
in an informal discovery conference, as required by Department 48’s procedures.

If
a party or an officer, director, managing agent, employee of a party, or person
designated as the person most qualified to testify fails to appear for examination
or produce documents, the demanding party may move to compel attendance, testimony,
and production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450,
subd. (a).)

Plaintiff
provides a copy of Defendant’s objections.
(Cohen Decl., Ex. 3.) The motion refers
to Defendant’s “baseless boilerplate objections” and argues that Defendant “objected
to nearly every single matter for examination and request for production of document
without substantive responses or any clear indication as to which matters for examination
it is willing to produce its witness on.”
(Motion at pp. 15-16.) But Plaintiff’s
motion is not accompanied by the required separate statement for discovery motions
that sets forth, among other things, “[a] statement of the factual and legal reasons
for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute.” (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.) Instead, the motion states that the testimony
and documents sought are relevant to showing whether Defendant willfully violated
the Song-Beverly Act, and they are “directly related to Defendant’s monitoring,
discussions, and internal investigations and analysis of the various contained in
Plaintiff’s vehicle and establishing that Defendant previously knew of the engine,
structural, and drivability system defects.”
(Motion at p. 17.)

On
October 5, 2022, Defendant’s counsel filed a declaration as a conditional non-opposition
to the motion, stating that Defendant will finalize a deposition date for its PMK
within the next 21 days. (Chung Decl. ¶¶
2-3.) Defendant “maintains its objections
to Plaintiff’s Documents to be Produced but will produce all non-confidential documents
at the time of the deposition.” (Chung Decl.
¶ 4.) Defendant also “maintains its objections
to certain categories of Plaintiff’s ‘Matters on which the Deponent is to be Examined’
described in Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition of NNA’s PMQ.” (Chung Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant’s objections to deposition categories
stated that the requests were overly broad, unduly burdensome, potentially sought
information protected from disclosure by the work product doctrine and/or the attorney-client
privilege, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. (Cohen Decl., Ex. 3.) Defendant may make proper objections to specific
questions during the deposition.

The
motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant
is ordered to produce its PMK for deposition and produce all non-confidential documents
no later than October 26, 2022.

Parties
who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org
indicating intention to submit. Parties intending
to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with
Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical
or N95 or KN95 mask.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior
Court