Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV14385, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14385    Hearing Date: November 19, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On June 21, 2023, Plaintiffs Howard Song and Hye Song filed this action against Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC.

On January 9, 2024, June 18, 2024, and August 30, 2024, Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”).  (Stoliker Decl. ¶¶ 18-22.)  Defendant objected to each notice.  (Stoliker Decl. ¶¶ 19-23.)

On October 21, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK and production of documents for RFP Nos. 1-3, 7, 8, 17, 20, 22, 24, 30, 32, 35, 40-43, 48, 55, 57, 58, 67, 75, 77-79, and 87.

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is denied because the documents are not proper subjects of judicial notice and are irrelevant.

DISCUSSION

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).)

Defendant argues that the motion is moot because it has offered February 20, 2024 as a date for the PMK deposition.  (Opposition at p. 5.)  Defendant also objected to the topics, so this motion is not moot.  Furthermore, merely offering a date does not moot this motion.  Plaintiffs attempted to meet and confer with Defendant about the date before filing this motion.  (See Stoliker Decl. ¶¶ 28-34.)  The Court is guessing that the parties subscribe to the common belief that depositions cannot be noticed until after a date is agreed on by the parties and that to do otherwise is to “unilaterally” set the deposition which is improper.  It is not improper to “unilaterally” pick a date.

A.        Defendant Must Produce Its PMK and Documents Relating to the Subject Vehicle.

Topic Nos. 1-6 relate to the service history, warranties, service advisory notices, technical service bulletins, recalls, defect investigations, and other documents for the subject vehicle.

Defendant’s objections to the deposition topics are overruled.  The motion is granted for these items.

RFP Nos. 1-3, 7, and 8 request documents regarding the subject vehicle; the root cause or failure analysis of any parts that were repaired or replaced on the subject vehicle; recalls, technical service bulletins, special service messages, dealer alerts, reports, campaigns, extended warranties, dealer advisories for the vehicle; and warranties and repairs for the subject vehicle.

Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is granted for these items.  For any items where Defendant claims a privilege, it must produce a compliant privilege log.

B.        Defendant Must Produce Its PMK and Documents Relating to Its Internal Knowledge, Investigation, and Policies.

Topic Nos. 7-24 relate to communications between Defendant and Plaintiffs, Defendant’s preservation of evidence, policies/guides/instructions provided to Defendant’s dealerships, advertising for the subject vehicle, terms of the warranties, Defendant’s policies and procedures for compliance with the Song-Beverly Act, and Defendant’s third-party dispute resolution program.

Defendant’s objections to the deposition topics are overruled.  The motion is granted for these items.

RFP Nos. 17, 20, 22, 24, 30, 32, 35, and 40 request documents regarding internal investigations into the alleged defects; field reports, dealer contacts, warranty claims, customer complaints, claims, and/or reported failures regarding the alleged defects; knowledge of defects for recalls; Failure Mode and Effects Analysis reports for the alleged defects; warranty history reports; any decision to issue any notices, letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, service messages, technical service bulletins, and recalls concerning the alleged defects; and fixes for the alleged defects.

Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is granted for these items.  For any items where Defendant claims a privilege, it must produce a compliant privilege log.

C.        Defendant Must Produce Documents for Its Summaries, Memoranda, and Other Documents.

RFP Nos. 41-43, 48, 55, 57, 58, 67, 75, 77-79, and 87 request documents regarding summaries and presentations concerning the alleged defects; identification of all part numbers, labor codes, and any other warranty regarding software updates for the alleged defects; evaluating consumer requests for repurchases or replacements pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act; training manuals for handling consumer lemon law repurchase requests; Warranty Policy and Procedure Manuals; all lemon law documents; communications between Defendant and governmental agencies; Early Warning Reports submitted to NHTSA; TREAD reports; NHTSA complaints about the alleged defects; and performance standards.

Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is granted for these items.  For any items where Defendant claims a privilege, it must produce a compliant privilege log.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to produce its PMK for deposition, along with the RFP documents, within 30 days.

The request for sanctions is 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.  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.

         Dated this 19th day of November 2024