On 05/08/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by MIGUEL MAQUEDA against GENERAL MOTORS LLC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
DOES 1 TO 50
5/8/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY PURSUANT TO SONG-BEVERJY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT; AND ETC
5/21/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
5/21/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
6/1/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
7/9/2018: Minute Order
7/31/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
7/31/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES
8/10/2018: Minute Order
9/17/2018: Minute Order
3/20/2019: Separate Statement
3/20/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
5/15/2019: Separate Statement
5/15/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
5/29/2019: Certificate of Mailing for
6/27/2019: Minute Order
at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Status Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses) of 05/29/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Miguel Maqueda (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order (Order); Filed by Miguel Maqueda (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Reply (In Support of Motion to Compel); Filed by Miguel Maqueda (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by General Motors, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Declaration (Declaration of Mitchel Brim in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel); Filed by General Motors, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-07-09 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Miguel Maqueda (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Miguel Maqueda (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY PURSUANT TO SONG-BEVERJY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT; AND ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC705486 Hearing Date: January 15, 2020 Dept: 40
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Miguel Maqueda
OPPOSITION: Defendant General Motors, LLC
On or about April 2017, Plaintiff Miguel Maqueda (“Plaintiff”) purchased a 2017 Chevrolet Colorado (“Subject Vehicle”), which was manufactured and distributed by Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle had a powertrain defect.
On November 20, 2018, Plaintiff served the original notice of the deposition of the PMQ and demand to produce responsive documents. On November 30, 2018, Defendant objected. Plaintiff’s counsel states that after that date they spoke with opposing counsel and came to an agreement to coordinate deposition dates for the PMQ and Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed an instant motion was filed on October 2, 2019.
Plaintiff requests that Defendant be compelled to produce its PMQ for deposition, as well as responsive documents.
The Court considered the moving papers, the opposition, and the reply, and rules as follows.
Standard: Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230 states: “[i]f the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.”
The party served with a deposition notice waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).) In addition to serving this written objection, a party may also move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (c).) “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . without having served a valid objection . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production. . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)
Untimely: Defendant argues that the motion is untimely because it was not filed within 60 days of it serving its objections on Plaintiff. A motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena must be “made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (b).) The completion of the record is when the opposing party serves their objections to the deposition subpoena. Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 127. The Court believes Plaintiff’s counsel and finds that there was an agreement between the parties to schedule deposition dates. (Kim Decl., Exs. 3-5.) Therefore, the Court will not deny the motion on this ground because of Plaintiff’s justified reliance on said agreement.
Meet and Confer: Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith. The Court has examined the emails between Plaintiff and Defendant’s former and current counsel and finds that there was a good faith attempt to meet and confer but that the parties were unable to resolve the issues.
PMQ Categories: Defendant has already agreed to produce a PMQ for categories Nos. 1 and 3. Therefore, the Court orders the PMQ to testify about those categories.
For all 19 examination categories, Defendant objects on the ground of relevancy, trade secrets, and attorney-client privilege. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s categories involve trade secrets and therefore the motion to compel should be denied. Defendant is rather vague about what trade secrets would be revealed. The Court notes “a manufacturer . . . has a legitimate interest in protecting its trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information.” Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Newman & Holtzinger (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1209. To protect Defendant’s trade secrets, the Court orders that the parties meet and confer about an appropriate protective order.
Defendant objects to the categories based on the attorney-client and work-product. Defendant does not state what testimony/document has been withheld based on these privileges. Defendant has not provided a privilege log to evaluate these claims. (CCP §2031.240.)
Defendant also objects to some of the categories on the ground that the term “powertrain defect” is “irrelevant, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive.” Plaintiff has defined this term and the Court finds that it is not overbroad or unduly burdensome.
The Court will deny Category No. 2 because it is overbroad. It requests all communication between Defendant and Plaintiff or anyone on Plaintiff’s behalf. The request is overbroad because it fails to specify any particular topic.
The Court finds that Categories Nos. 4-19 are relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety, except as to Category No. 2.
Documents: Defendant objects to all 35 of Plaintiff’s document requests. Defendant raises some of the same objections, relevancy, trade secrets, and attorney-client privilege, to the demand for document production. Defendant also argues that it has complied with several of the requests in prior document productions.
The Court notes that Defendant objects to Request No. 8, production of the repair manual on the ground that the manual is equally accessible to both parties. Defendant provides a mailing address, presumably from which Plaintiff can order the manual. The repair manual should be more readily available to Defendant. Therefore, the Court orders Defendant to produce the repair manual.
Plaintiff’s motion will be granted with the following limitations:
Defendant need not produce any documents that it has already produced.
The Court will deny Request No. 3, which seeks all internal reports, memoranda, correspondence, and regional field reports pertaining to the subject vehicle. The request is denied because it is overbroad as there is no limit to the request.
The Court will deny Request No. 16, which requests that Plaintiff “[p]lease produce the Warranty Vehicle Inquiry of all 2016 Chevrolet Silverado vehicles that YOU have repurchased under the Song Beverly Act in the past four years for nonconformities related to the POWERTRAIN DEFECT.” The request is overbroad as it seeks information not related to the subject vehicle.
The Court will deny Request No. 19, which requests that Plaintiff produce “all documents, including but not limited to electronic data and e-mails, concerning or relating in any way to any decision to modify YOUR vehicles and/or any of YOUR related parts used in YOUR vehicles which are the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” The request is overbroad as it seeks information not related to the subject vehicle.
The Court will deny Request No. 21, which requests “all documents, records and data, including but not limited to electronic data and e-mails, concerning customer complaints, claims, reported failures, and warranty claims related to the POWERTRAIN DEFECT in the YOUR vehicles which are the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” The request is overbroad as it seeks information not related to the subject vehicle.
The Court will deny Requests Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 31, which request documents about vehicles which are of the same make, year, and model as the subject vehicle, because the requests are overbroad.
The Court will deny Request No. 32, production of all lemon law documents, because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome.
Conclusion: The Court GRANTS the motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK as to all Categories, except Category No. 2.
The Court GRANTS the motion to compel the production of responsive documents except as to Requests Nos. 3, 16, 19, 21, 26, 27, 28, 31, and 32.