Judge Timothy B. Taylor, Case 37-2022-00019805-CU-BC-CTL 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2022-00019805-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 12, 2023

10/13/2023 01:30:00 PM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00019805-CU-BC-CTL ROMERO FLORES VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 06/29/2023

Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel PMK Deposition Flores v. GM, Case No. 2022-19805 Oct. 13, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a Song-Beverly 'lemon law' case involving a new 2021 Chevrolet Silverado purchased by plaintiff in April of that year. She alleges 'engine, transmission, and emission system defects.' The complaint was filed in May of 2022. GM answered in June of 2022. ROA 9.

At a due-course CMC, the court set the case for trial in October of 2023. ROA 16-20. But when the case was called for a TRC September 21, the parties had not prepared a Joint Trial Readiness Report and were not ready for trial.

Presently, plaintiff seeks an order compelling a PMK deposition. ROA 21-25. GM filed opposition. ROA 43, 45-46. The court has reviewed the papers and no further submissions are authorized in connection with this motion.* The case is also set for a CMC. ROA 31.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. A civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.

'[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.

'Among the myriad purposes of the civil discovery statutes is to safeguard against surprise and gamesmanship, and to prevent delay.' Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 306.

B. Any party may obtain discovery by an oral deposition. Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.010(a). 'The goal of discovery depositions is ordinarily twofold: to obtain information from the witness and to provide a foundation for the witness's impeachment, if necessary, at trial.' Berroteran v. Superior Court (2022) 12 Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2991165 58 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ROMERO FLORES VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] 37-2022-00019805-CU-BC-CTL Cal.5th 867, 892. Service of a deposition notice requires a party witness to attend, testify, and produce any documents requested in the notice. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280(a). Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(a) permits a motion to compel when 'after service of a deposition notice,' a party 'fails to appear for examination.' C. 'A central purpose of the Discovery Act was to keep the trial courts out of the business of refereeing day-to-day discovery by requiring parties to conduct discovery and resolve disputes with minimal judicial involvement.' Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 253-54. The court's determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate involves the exercise of discretion. Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431. Among the factors the court should consider are the history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, and the prospects for success. Id. A trial judge's perceptions on such matters, inherently factual in nature at least in part, must not be lightly disturbed. Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1012-13.

3. Discussion and Rulings.

The motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part.

A. As an initial matter, the court notes that plaintiff's 285-page separate statement is excessive for a single discovery motion. While cutting and pasting may have saved time for plaintiff's counsel, the voluminous document made the court's task extremely burdensome and difficult. 'Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.' U.S. v. Dunkel (7th Cir. 1991) 972 F.2d 955, 956.

B. The court also finds that plaintiff made a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution.

(See Trybig Decl., ¶¶ 16, 19-20; Ex. 4.) The fact that GM declined to participate does not render plaintiff's meet and confer efforts deficient.

C. Turning to the PMK categories, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

The motion is granted as to categories 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34. GM has agreed to produce a witness for these categories.

The motion is denied as to categories 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29. The categories – which concern GM's 'investigation' efforts, various policies and procedures, and the operations of its customer call center – are overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this straightforward lemon law case. See Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 478, 484 ('The Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was enacted to address the difficulties faced by consumers in enforcing express warranties.').

D. The motion to compel the production of documents at the PMK deposition is granted in part and denied in part.

The motion is granted as to request 8. Documents setting forth the PMK's job description are clearly relevant to the PMK's deposition.

The motion is granted as to request 15. GM has agreed to produce the requested technical service bulletins.

The motion is granted as limited by GM with to requests 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 16. GM has agreed to partially comply with these requests. Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing why a further response should be ordered. See Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 541 (propounding party has burden of filing motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory).

The motion is denied as to request 9. A sufficient response, indicating that no responsive documents Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2991165 58 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ROMERO FLORES VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] 37-2022-00019805-CU-BC-CTL exist, has been provided. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.

The motion is denied as to requests 2, 11, 12, 13, and 14. For the reasons discussed above, these requests are overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

E. Accordingly, GM is directed to produce the person(s) most qualified to provide deposition testimony and produce the requested documents, as set forth above, on a mutually agreeable date and time to be re-noticed by plaintiff. The deposition(s) must be completed by November 17, 2023, unless the parties agree otherwise.

_______________________________ *The court has ruled against GM in several similar settings earlier this year. See, e.g., Flemate v. GM, Case No. 2022-13871, rulings of May 5 and June 30, 2023.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2991165 58