Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV10446, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10446    Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On March 25, 2022, Plaintiffs Maria Vazquez Juarez and Eduardo Hernandez Enriquez filed this action against 5905 AHK, LLC and General Motors LLC for breach of warranties arising from the purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle.

On December 7, 2022, Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of the person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) for General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) for December 28, 2022.  (Thomas Decl. ¶ 4.)  On December 21, 2022, Defendant stated that it “will not produce a witness at the date and time noticed but will produce a witness at a mutually convenient time and place.”  (Thomas Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. C.)  On December 28, 2022, Plaintiffs took a certificate of non-appearance for the deposition.  (Thomas Decl. ¶ 9.)  Plaintiffs sent multiple emails to Defendant asking for dates for the deposition.  (Thomas Decl. ¶ 10.)

On February 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK.  Although the document-production categories are also in Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, Plaintiff’s motion does not challenge Defendant’s document production and seeks only to compel the production of a PMK for deposition.

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 presented a 165-page separate statement in support of its motion and defendant submitted a 42-page opposition. The procedures for Department 48 on the court’s website in exhibit A require the parties to present a single separate statement for all of their discovery disputes on a given motion. It is unclear to the court why counsel violated the court’s directive. The court may consider sanctions in the future for such violations. Both of the separate statements were unnecessarily repetitive. Often individual discovery disputes can be grouped and the issues that relate to those discovery disputes detailed only once rather than repeated over and over and over again.             Had the court followed the parties’ lead, it would have presented the parties with an over 200-page order instead of this 7-page order. In perusing the parties’ prolix separate statements, this judge felt “like [a] pig hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”  (Greenwood v. FAA (1994) 28 F.3d 971, 977.)

A.        Defendant Must Produce Its PMK for Category Nos. 1-10.

Category No. 1 requests a witness on “All of YOUR records regarding the 2021 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 VIN: 1GCRWBEH6MZ111007.  (‘SUBJECT VEHICLE’).”  Defendant agreed to “produce a witness at a mutually agreeable time and place to testify about GM’s understanding of the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s service, maintenance and repair history under GM’s New Vehicle Limited Warranty.”

Category No. 2 requests a witness on “All warranty claims made to YOU with regard to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”  Category No. 4 requests a witness on “All repairs and service performed on the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”  For both categories, Defendant agreed to “produce a witness at a mutually agreeable time and place to testify about GM’s understanding of the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s service, maintenance and repair history under the Warranty.”

Category No. 3 requests a witness on “Warranty coverage and exclusions for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”  Defendant agreed to “produce a witness at a mutually agreeable time and place to testify about the terms of the Warranty that GM issued for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Category No. 5 requests a witness on “All correspondence, with any person except an attorney, regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”  Defendant agreed “produce a witness at a mutually agreeable time and place to testify about the nonprivileged Service Request Activity Reports, if any, GM generated for the SUBJECT VEHICLE, in which GM would have documented its communications with Plaintiffs and any GM-authorized dealership about the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”

Category No. 6 requests a witness on “Any requests for a repurchase of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”  Category No. 7 requests a witness on “All documents that YOU reviewed, if any, in determining YOUR response to any repurchase request for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”  Category No. 8 requests a witness on “All persons that YOU talked to or interviewed or made any other type of inquiries from, in determining YOUR response to any repurchase request for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.”  Category No. 9 requests a witness on “YOUR analysis as to whether the SUBJECT VEHICLE should be repurchased in response to the pre-litigation request.”  For these categories, Defendant agreed to “produce a witness at a mutually agreeable time and place to testify about whether GM received a request from Plaintiffs to repurchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE and, if so, how GM responded.”

Category No. 10 requests a witness on “All documents (including all recordings) produced by YOU in this litigation thus far.”  Defendant agreed to “produce a witness at a mutually agreeable time and place to discuss the relevant and nonprivileged aspects of this Category.”

The motion is GRANTED for these categories, which seek relevant information about Plaintiff’s vehicle.  Defendant must produce its PMK for these full topics, not its equivocal limitations on the topics, except for matters that are privileged.

B.        Defendant Must Produce Its PMK for Category Nos. 11-18, 20-21.

Category No. 11 requests a witness on “YOUR policies and procedures for determining eligibility for a vehicle replacement or repurchase under the Song-Beverly Act in California from 2020 to present.”

Category No. 12 requests a witness on “The policies and procedures that the persons who answer calls at YOUR 1-800 customer assistance number should follow when handling a California lemon law claim, a request for a vehicle repurchase, or request for a vehicle replacement.”

Category No. 13 requests a witness on “The policies and procedures that the persons who respond to internet web-based and e-mail communications should follow when handling a California lemon law claim, a request for a vehicle repurchase, or request for a vehicle replacement.”

Category No. 14 requests a witness on “The information that YOU made available to the individuals that YOU task with responding to requests for a vehicle repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly Act from 2020 to present.”

Category No. 15 requests a witness on “All training provided by YOU for purposes of evaluating a request for a vehicle repurchase or replacement in California from 2020 to present.”

Category No. 16 requests a witness on “YOUR policies and procedures regarding what constitutes a “non-conformity” under the Song-Beverly Act from 2020 to present.”

Category No. 17 requests a witness on “YOUR policies and procedures regarding what constitutes a ‘reasonable number of repair attempts’ under the Song-Beverly Act from 2020 to present.”

Category No. 18 requests a witness on “YOUR policies and procedures regarding determining whether a nonconformity substantially impairs a vehicle’s use, value, or safety from 2020 to present.”

Category No. 20 requests a witness on YOUR policies and procedures for calculating a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act from 2020 to present.”

Category No. 21 requests a witness on “YOUR policies and procedures for proactively (without a customer request) offering a vehicle repurchase or replacement pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act from 2020 to present.”

For these categories, Defendant agreed to “produce a witness at a mutually agreeable time and place to testify about whether GM received a request from Plaintiffs to repurchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE and, if so, how GM responded, and what procedures GM followed to respond to Plaintiffs’ request, if any.  Beyond that, no witness will be produced.”

The motion is GRANTED for these categories, which seek relevant information about allegations of a willful failure to comply with the warranties.  Defendant must produce its PMK for these full topics, not its equivocal limitations on the topics, except for matters that are privileged.

C.        Defendant Must Produce Its PMK for Category Nos. 19, [SIC], 22-25.

Category No. 19 requests a witness on “YOUR warranty claim submission policies and procedures for YOUR authorized dealerships, including timing.”  Defendant objected on the grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, irrelevant, not reasonably limited in time, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Defendant also objected on the grounds that it seeks confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information, as well as information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.

Category No. [SIC] (“[SIC]” in original Separate Statements) requests a witness on “YOUR policies and procedures, that were in effect from 2020 to present, related to tracking similar warranty repairs in YOUR vehicles.”

Category No. 22 requests a witness on “YOUR policies and procedures, that were in effect from 2020 to present, related to tracking vehicles that had multiple warranty repair presentations.”

Category No. 23 requests a witness on “YOUR databases and software used to store, query, or analyze vehicle warranty data in the United States from 2020 to present.”

Category No. 24 requests a witness on “YOUR methodology for categorizing or binning warranty repair presentations in YOUR warranty databases from 2020 to present.”

Category No. 25 requests a witness on “The searchability of YOUR warranty databases from 2020 to present.”

The motion is GRANTED for these categories, which seek relevant information about allegations of a willful failure to comply with the warranties.  Defendant must produce its PMK for these topics, except for matters that are privileged.

D.        Defendant Must Produce Its PMK for Category No. 26.

Category No. 26 requests a witness on “YOUR discovery responses in this case.”  Defendant agreed to “produce a witness at a mutually agreeable time and place to testify about its discovery responses in this case.”

Although Defendant agreed to produce a witness on this topic, it has yet to do so.  The motion is GRANTED.  Defendant must produce its PMK for this topic.

E.        Conclusion

The motion is GRANTED.  Defendant must produce its PMK for deposition, as set forth above, within 21 days.

The requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

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.

         Dated this 23rd day of March 2023