Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV01532, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV01532    Hearing Date: October 30, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On May 10, 2024, plaintiff Armando Robles (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for restitution and damages against defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”) arising from alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”). Plaintiff alleges that on or about October 29, 2017, he purchased a 2017 GMC Sierra 1500 (“Subject Vehicle”) which suffered from nonconformities and that Defendant has been unable to or refused to conform it to the applicable express and implied warranties under the Act. (Compl., ¶¶ 10-13.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant has failed to and refuses to repurchase the vehicle and make restitution. (Compl., ¶¶ 14-15.)

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for an order compelling Defendant’s Person Most Qualified (“PMQ”) to appear for deposition and produce documents. The deposition notice identifies 9 categories of testimony and 10 categories of documents. (Motion, Ex. F.)

On October 17, 2024, Defendant filed its opposition brief and a separate statement.

On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

II.          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).)

Plaintiff initially served a deposition notice scheduling the deposition for July 3, 2024. (Motion, Ex. A.) On July 9, 2024, the deposition was rescheduled to July 31, 2024. (Ex. C.) On July 24, 2024, Defendant served objections to the notice and refused to produce a witness on the grounds that the deposition was unilaterally noticed. (Ex. D.) The day before the scheduled deposition, on July 29, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel requested to meet and confer to choose a mutually agreeable date for the deposition and to discuss the objections. (Ex. E.) Plaintiff’s counsel included a letter and proposed to discuss the issues raised over the phone or Zoom. (Ex. E.)

On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff served a Second Amended Notice of Deposition scheduling a deposition for August 22, 2024. On August 15, 2024, Defendant served objections and again complained that the deposition was unilaterally noticed.

On August 20, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel requesting to meet and confer to choose a mutually agreeable date. On September 23, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel followed up on their request. Defendant did not respond to either request. This motion was filed on September 27, 2024. Due to these multiple attempts to reschedule and discuss Defendant’s objections, the Court finds that Plaintiff has fulfilled its obligation to meet and confer prior to filing this motion.

Category Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 8 and 9;

Plaintiff’s Category Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 8 and 9 pertain to Defendant’s decision not to repurchase or replace the Subject Vehicle, as well as the Subject Vehicle’s repair history, the internal case number that was assigned to Plaintiff and the Subject Vehicle, any communications about the Subject Vehicle and any investigation performed to determine whether the Subject Vehicle qualified or repurchase or replacement.   

In response, Defendant asserted various objections but agreed, subject to those objections, to “produce a witness at a mutually agreeable time and place to discuss the relevant and nonprivileged aspects of [each] [c]ategory.” (Motion, Ex. D.)

Since Defendant agrees to produce a witness, the motion to compel is GRANTED with respect to these categories of examination.

RFP Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6-8

These document requests ask for documents and correspondence relating to the Subject Vehicle as well as recalls, TSBs, and writings reviewed in deciding whether to repurchase or replace the Subject Vehicle.

Defendant states that it did not repair or service the Subject Vehicle and that the Subject Vehicle was repaired and serviced by an authorized repair facility. Nevertheless, to the extent that responsive documents are in its possession, custody, and control, they must be produced. Although Defendant refers Plaintiff to the repair orders, Service Request Activity Report(s) and Global Warranty History Report previously produced in response to Plaintiff’s Requests or Production of Documents, there is no indication that these are the only responsive documents in their possession, custody, and control. Accordingly, the motion to compel production is GRANTED. The objections that the requests are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information are OVERRULED.

Category Nos. 5 and 7; RFP Nos. 3, 5, and 9

These topics of examination and document requests concern Defendant’s lemon law policies and procedures as well as other vehicles which exhibited the same alleged nonconformities complained of by Plaintiff, including the transmission.

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel and orders Defendant to produce its policy and procedure documents for Song-Beverly Act compliance including any “buy back manual” provided to decision makers would be ordered to be produced, subject to the privilege limitations that communications with in-house counsel or outside counsel would not be produced but identified in a privilege log. The discoverable policies and procedures are limited to those applicable to California and the time period when Plaintiff’s vehicle was subject to consideration for a buy back.

Any information about other vehicles is limited to those sold in California which are the same year, make, and model of the Subject Vehicle with complaints similar to the alleged defects claimed by Plaintiff.

RFP No. 10

This request for production demands “[a] copy of any photographs or videos of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” Defendant has states that it is unaware of any responsive photographs or videos but that its investigation and discovery is continuing. Insofar as Defendant’s investigation leads to the discovery of such photographs and videos, the motion to compel production is GRANTED and Defendant is ordered to produce them.

Sanctions

Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s multiple attempts to meet and confer and to schedule the deposition for a mutually agreeable date. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $1800, consisting of 3 hours at an hourly rate of $475 and 1 hour at the rate of $375. Sanctions are to be paid within 20 days.

III.        CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to produce a PMK within the next 20 days. Sanctions are to be paid within 20 days.

Dated this 30th day of October, 2024

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.