2013-00142713-CU-BC

Robert Woodard vs. Ford Motor Company

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Depositions

Filed By: Romano, Mark

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Ford PMQ with regard to certain topics and employee Fadi
Naddaf is granted.

Plaintiffs’ Evidentiary objection to the Declaration of Fadi Naddaf is overruled. The
declaration complies with CCP 2015.5 because even though executed in Michigan, is
under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Michigan and California.

Plaintiff alleges a claim under the Song-Beverly Act (“Lemon Law”) arising out of the
purchase of an allegedly defective Ford F-350 truck. The truck is equipped with a
Navistar 6.0 liter diesel engine. Plaintiff seeks to depose the PMQ concerning the
repair attempts, the warranty claims, defendant’s policies and procedures for
compliance with the Song-Beverly Act, the technical service bulletins and recalls
related to the subject vehicle, and defendant’s communications related to the
Woodards and their truck. Plaintiffs seek to depose employee Fadi Naddaf who was in
Ford’s turbo department and has relevant knowledge regarding the turbo defects with
the 6.0 L engine.

Plaintiff noticed the depositions in October 2013. Ford objected to the notices but then
stated that it would produce a witness as to at least some of the categories. The Trial
Date is June 23, 2014. Plaintiff seeks to compel the production of the two witnesses
within seven days. However, the discovery cut-off is not until May 23, 2014.
Moreover, if a deposition is timely noticed and improperly objected to or not complied
with, it is not necessary that the court ordered depositions subject to this order be
completed before the discovery cut-off date.

In opposition, Ford incorrectly contends that the plaintiffs must prove that their truck
was repaired four or more times for the same problem, ignoring the section of the Act
that requires a manufacturer to conform a vehicle to its warranty within a reasonable
number of attempts. Civil Code section 1792.2(d)(2). The phrase “a reasonable
number of attempts” means that a vehicle was subject to more than one repair
attempt. Silvio v Ford Motor Company (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1208. Ford also
contends that since Fadi Naddaf has no personal knowledge of plaintiff’s truck, his
deposition should not take place. Ford contends that this is a simple lemon law case
and all that plaintiffs need to prove is that the vehicle was not repaired properly after a
number of attempts, impairing the value or use of the vehicle. The Court rejects Ford’s
assertion that the evidence sought seeks financial information that is protected by Civil
Code section 3295(c). The declaration of Naddaf states he has no knowledge of plaintiff’s actual vehicle,
however he is not sought to be deposed on this topic but on his knowledge of the
defective turbo component of the diesel engine.

The deposition of the PMQ and the engineer with knowledge of the turbo engine are
likely to lead to admissible evidence. Indeed, in the discovery context, information is
relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial,
or facilitating a settlement. [citations omitted] Admissibility is not the test and
information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible
evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612.)
Discovery related to Ford’s notice of the defects in the 6.0L engine like the one in
Plaintiffs’ vehicle clearly meets this standard. As already observed, it is not necessary
that Naddaf had personal knowledge of plaintiff’s truck. Ford has not met its burden to
show that the depositions would be oppressive or burdensome.

Ford seeks a protective order in its opposition. Requests for orders must be made
pursuant to a noticed motion procedure. CCP 1005(b).

The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the time and place of the
depositions of the two witnesses, to take place on or before May 20, 2014.

Sanctions are ordered to be paid to plaintiffs by defendant in the reasonable amount of
$1,760 (four hours and filing fee)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.