LINE: 2 18-CIV-00789 ALFREDO ABOYTES VS. FCA US LLC, ET AL.

ALFREDO ABOYTES FCA US LLC
DAVID N. BARRY JON D. UNIVERSAL

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ABOYTES AT DEPOSITION TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s motion to compel the attendance of Plaintiff Alfredo Aboytes at deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition within 14 days of this order.

Since November 2018, Defendant FCA has provided Plaintiff numerous opportunities to supply a mutually agreeable date for Plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff did not cooperate until after this motion was filed. Plaintiff’s last-minute cooperation does not moot the motion. Plaintiff has cited CCP § 2030.300. That section addresses responses to interrogatories and is inapplicable to the present motion. Plaintiff did not provide a timely response to Defendant’s request to supply dates to proceed with the deposition.

The court finds that Defendant’s meet and confer efforts were adequate. The court notes that, although FCA indicated, in an email on June 21, it would withdraw the motion if Plaintiff agreed to the deposition on July 10, Plaintiff did not confirm or follow up on that offer.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s motion should be denied for failure to file a separate statement. Plaintiff, however, cites no specific subsection within CRC 3.1345 requiring Defendant to file a separate statement in conjunction with a motion to compel attendance at deposition.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,060.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

LINE: 3 18-CIV-00789 ALFREDO ABOYTES VS. FCA US LLC, ET AL.

ALFREDO ABOYTES FCA US LLC
DAVID N. BARRY JON D. UNIVERSAL

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL A VEHICLE INSPECTION TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s motion to compel a vehicle inspection is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to produce the subject vehicle for inspection within 14 days of this order.

On November 30, 2018, Plaintiff noticed the vehicle inspection to occur on January 29. Defendant did not respond to the demand until January 18, more than 30 days after service of the demand. As a result, Plaintiff’s waived any objections to the demand pursuant to CCP § 2031.260.

Plaintiff contends that, pursuant to CCP § 2031.310, Defendant’s motion is untimely because it was not filed within 45 days of Plaintiff’s response on January 18. CCP § 2031.310 governs motions to compel further responses. Defendant, however, does not seek to compel further responses to the demand. Rather, Defendant seeks to compel the inspection. Further, the 45-day limit set forth in CCP § 2031.310 runs from service of a verified response. Plaintiff has not alleged that any verified response to Defendant’s demand was served. Accordingly, the court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant’s motion is untimely.

As in its opposition to the motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s motion should be denied for failure to file a separate statement. Plaintiff, however, cites no specific subsection within CRC 3.1345 or other authority requiring Defendant to file a separate statement in conjunction with a motion to compel a vehicle inspection.

Finally, Plaintiff contends it is entitled to a protective order “that prohibits FCA from unreasonably excluding Plaintiff from the road test portion of the inspection of its own vehicle.” [Opposition, p.8] Plaintiff has provided no authority supporting the issuance of such an order. Plaintiff alleges that a protective order is necessary “to obviate the possibility that Defense could thus tamper with or alter data gleaned from said road test.” [Id., p.10] Plaintiff, however, has offered no evidence indicating that this is a valid concern in this case. Plaintiff’s motion is denied for the additional reason that, as indicated above, Plaintiff did not “promptly” seek a protection order as required by CCP § 2031.060.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED. In light of the similarities between this motion and Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition, the court finds that no sanctions should be awarded in conjunction with this motion. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.