Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 22STCV17085, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff Israel A. Enriquez filed this action against Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc., arising from his purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle.

On September 1, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and a motion to compel vehicle inspection.

On December 20, 2022, Defendant served a Notice of Deposition for January 17, 2023. (Chang Decl. ¶ 2.) On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff served objections. (Chang Decl. ¶ 3.) From February 7, 2023 through June 9, 2023, Defendant sent three meet-and-confer letters/emails asking for alternative dates. (Chang Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.) Plaintiff did not respond.

On July 26, 2023, Defendant served an Amended Notice for August 25, 2023. (Chang Decl. ¶ 7.) On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff served objections. (Chang Decl. ¶ 8.) The same day, Defendant contacted Plaintiff about alternative dates, but Plaintiff did not respond. (Chang Decl. ¶ 9.)

On September 1, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition.

If a party to the action fails to appear for or proceed with an examination without making a valid objection under Section 2025.410, the party noticing the deposition may move to compel the deponent’s attendance and testimony. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) Section 2025.410 provides for written objections to a deposition notice “that does not comply with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2025.210).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410., subd. (a).)

Plaintiff’s initial objections that he and his counsel “are not available on the above-referenced date” and that “Defendant unilaterally noticed said deposition without consulting Plaintiff’s attorneys” are not valid objections under Section 2025.410.

Plaintiff also objected to the Amended Notice, stating that he “will not be appearing for the deposition as presently noticed. Plaintiff request that Defendant meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel in order to schedule the deposition on a mutually agreeable date.” This too is not a valid objection.

Plaintiff argues that “Defendant’s Motion is moot in light of the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel, in good faith, provided reasonable alternative dates to Defendant’s counsel for the deposition of Plaintiff Israel Enriquez to occur on November 16, 17, and 21st.” (Opposition at p. 3.) But it is undisputed that to date, Plaintiff failed to appear for his deposition. Accordingly, the motion is not moot.

Plaintiff also argues that the motion is procedurally defective because Defendant failed to include a separate statement in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(4)-(5). (Opposition at p. 4.) Defendant is not seeking to “compel answers at a deposition” or “compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition.” No answers to specific questions are being compelled, and this motion is not challenging Plaintiff’s objections to the document requests. Rather, Defendant is seeking to compel Plaintiff’s attendance at a deposition.

The Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition within 30 days.

The request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions of $1,200.00 to Defendant within 30 days.

On December 20, 2022, Defendant served a Demand for Vehicle Inspection for an inspection date of February 6, 2023. (Chang Decl. ¶ 4.) On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff served objections. (Chang Decl. ¶ 5.) On February 2, 2023 and May 17, 2023, Defendant’s counsel sent meet-and-confer letters. (Chang Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.)

On June 28, 2023, Defendant served an Amended Demand. (Chang Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff again objected. (Chang Decl. ¶ 9.) On August 9 and 21, 2023, Defendant’s counsel sent meet-and-confer emails. (Chang Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.)

If a responding party fails to comply with a demand for inspection, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff’s objections that “Defendant unilaterally noticed said inspection without confirming availability with Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel” and request to “[p]lease meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel for a mutually-agreeable date” are not valid objections.

Plaintiff’s objection that the “notice for this inspection lacks any indication as to what Defendant intends to do during this inspection” is overruled. The both demands stated that the inspection would involve “testing of the engine, the body of the vehicle, and electrical system” and “photographs and/or videotaping.”

Plaintiff argues that the motion is procedurally defective because Defendant failed to include a separate statement in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(4)-(5). (Opposition at p. 4.) Defendant is not seeking to “compel answers at a deposition” or “compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition” with this motion to compel inspection.

The Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to produce the vehicle for inspection within 30 days.

The request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions of $1,485.00 to Defendant within 30 days.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court