Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01932, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01932    Hearing Date: March 27, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

GARY SMITH,

                    Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

GENERAL MOTORS LLC,

 

                    Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.:  23AHCV01932

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

March 27, 2025

 

)

 

 

On February 25, 2025, plaintiff Gary Smith (“Plaintiff”) filed this motion for an order compelling defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) to produce their Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) for deposition in this lemon law action. The motion addresses eleven categories for examination, Nos. 1 through 11. In Defendant’s opposition brief, Defendant states it agreed to produce a deponent for Category Nos .1 and 5 through 11. (Opp., p. 6.) Since Defendant is willing to produce a PMK for these categories, the Court GRANTS the motion with respect to Category Nos. 1 and 5 through 11 and orders Defendant to produce a PMK within 30 days.

As for Category Nos. 2 through 4, the Court GRANTS the motion in part because Defendant’s policies, procedures, and guidelines regarding its warranties, handling of consumer complaints, and compliance with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act are relevant to the issue of willfulness and whether Defendant is liable for a civil penalty. Further, Defendant’s objections on the ground that the Categories also seek confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information are overruled. Defendant only submits the declaration of its attorney who fails to demonstrate how the requested testimony about policies, procedures, and guidelines constitute trade secrets.

Nevertheless, the Court limits the testimony to be provided about Defendant’s policies, procedures, and guidelines regarding warranties and consumer complaints to those applicable for 2023 (when the lawsuit was filed) and provided to Defendant’s authorized repair facilities. If a separate written policy, procedure, or manual exists regarding purchases or buybacks applicable to vehicles sold or leased in California, the testimony shall be limited to the policy/procedure/manual for the year the lawsuit was filed and/or the year Plaintiff contends their vehicle qualified for repurchase.

As with Category Nos. 1 and 5 through 11, Defendant is ordered to produce a PMK for Category Nos. 2 through 4 within 30 days.

No sanctions shall be imposed as none were requested.

Dated this 27th day of March 2025

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.