Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 22STCV15907, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15907    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PMQ REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS IS GRANTED, IN PART 

Background 

This lemon law action arose when Plaintiff Ameenah Rasheed filed a Complaint against Defendants Land Rover North America, LLC and Triunity Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (“JLRNA”) and Does 1 to 25 for violations of the Song-Beverly Act. 

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel the Designation and Deposition of Defendant JLRNA’s Persons(s) Most Qualified. 

JLRNA filed opposing papers on October 12, 2022. Plaintiff filed a Reply on October 17, 2022. 

Legal Standard 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) states in relevant part:  

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must also “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice” and “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (2).)   

Discussion 

Motion to Compel PMQ and RPD

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant JLRNA’s Person(s) Most Qualified (“PMA”) with a Request for Production of Documents (RPD), at deposition. Plaintiff asserts that it has attempted to get a deposition date for JLRNA’s PMQ since July 29, 2022, but after 1.5 months of meeting and conferring, on September 14, 2022, JLRNA’s finally offered depositions that are five months away and thus, unreasonable to Plaintiff. 

JLNRA’s objection to the Motion is because JLRNA has already offered Plaintiff’s counsel deposition dates for PMQ for February 15 and 16, 2023 which are the earliest available dates that PMQ has available. (Dupart Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 1.) JLRNA asserts that the two local representatives that serve as its PMK are completely booked with numerous trials, depositions, and vehicle inspections but an earlier date will be provided if one becomes available as some cases are settled. 

Plaintiff asserts the motion should be granted because JLRNA’s has refused to provide reasonable deposition dates and only provided the dates after 1.5 months of meeting and conferring. Moreover, Plaintiff asserts by setting the deposition dates 5 months into the future, JLRNA is engaging in delay tactics and bad faith. Moreover, JNRNA’s served boilerplate objections without merit to the RPD. (Azimtash Decl. Ex. F; Dupart Decl. Ex. 2.) 

Plaintiff also asserts it has no obligation to accommodate JLRNA’s schedule and JLRNA fails to provide evidence, such as case names, case numbers, and other information on cases to show when and where PMQ is expected to testify. Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel is willing to make himself available on weekends to conduct the deposition. (Azimtash Supp. Decl. ¶ 2.) Therefore, as the party objecting to the noticed deposition, Defendant JLRNA bears the burden of justifying its objection to the discovery sought. (See Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221.) 

The Court finds that the Motion to Compel Defendant’s PMQ is MOOT, in part.  JLRNA’s counsel has provided a declaration signed under penalty of perjury representing that the earliest available dates for the PMQs are February 15 or 16, 2023 and that an earlier date will be provided if one becomes available. (Dupart Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7.) The Court has no reason to believe that JLRNA’s counsel has provided false information. 

However, Defendant JLRNA served boilerplate objections to the noticed deposition and RPD.  JLRNA’s asserted the same overall general objections to Plaintiff’s RPD, and as such, the objections are without merit. The court notes that boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California under Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513. As the responding party, JLRNA has the burden of establishing a valid objection, including any claim of privilege. (See Coy, supra 58 Cal.2d at  220.) If a party asserts a “burdensome” objection, that party bears the burden of “showing the quantum of work required” to respond to discovery and articulate that burden that is being imposed on that party. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407, 417-418.) Here, Defendant JLRNA fails to explain why the documents were not produced. 

Plaintiff’s motion sets forth facts showing good cause that justify the production of the documents sought in the deposition notice, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b)(1). However, the Court reminds Plaintiff that this Court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation) limits the categories regarding the information sought. Matters such as Category No. 5 should be limited to Lemon Law Documents published by JLRNA and provided to its employees, agents, and representatives for vehicles of the same year, make, and model of the subject vehicle. 

Therefore, the request for the Production of Documents is GRANTED and the Motion to Compel the Deposition of PMK is MOOT. 

Sanctions 

Plaintiff incurred $5,175.00 in fees related to this motion billed at a rate of 450.00 per hour and representing 11.5 hours of work. (Azimtash Decl. ¶ 8.) In addition, Plaintiff incurred $96.03 in costs. (Id.) Plaintiff requests an even $5,200.00 in sanctions against Defendant JLRNA. 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (g) provides, “(1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” 

The Court finds that sanctions against Defendant JLRNA are proper because meet and confer correspondence went unanswered and a deposition date was not offered until September 14, 2022, despite the deposition being on the calendar since July 29, 2022. (Azimtash Decl. ¶¶ 3-6, Ex. A-D.) Moreover, Defendant JLRNA served boilerplate objections to the RPD of documents and offered no explanation as to why the documents would not be produced sooner.

The Court awards $1,221.03 in sanctions, consisting of $1,125.00 for 2.50 hours of work on this motion and $96.03 in costs associated with filing this motion and a reply, against JLRNA. 

Conclusion 

The Motion to Compel Defendant’s PMQ is MOOT, IN PART as to the Motion to Compel the Deposition of PMQ but GRANTED as to the Production of Documents. 

The Court GRANTS sanctions in the amount of $1,221.03 consisting of $1,125.00 for 2.50 hours of work on this motion and $96.03 in costs associated with filing this motion and its reply against Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

Plaintiff to give notice.