Case Number: BC671164 Hearing Date: June 05, 2018 Dept: 53

brett d. klausner vs. fca us llc , et al.; BC671164, JUNE 5, 2018

[Tentative] Order RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF AND PRODUCTION OF VEHICLE FOR INSPECTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,580.00

Defendants FCA US LLC and CERRITOS, DODGE, INC.’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff and Production of Vehicle for Inspection is GRANTED. Defendants’ Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,740.00.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Brett D. Klausner (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against Defendants FCA US LLC and Cerritos Dodge, Inc. (jointly, “Defendants”) on August 4, 2017. The Complaint alleges violations of the Song-Beverly Act, stemming from Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2012 Dodge Challenger.

On November 16, 2017, Defendants served notice of Plaintiff’s deposition and production of his vehicle for inspection, scheduled for January 9, 2018. (Fisher Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) On November 28, 2017, Plaintiff served objections to the notice, stating that Plaintiff and his attorney were unavailable on January 9, 2018, and that the vehicle inspection request was improper and untimely. (Fisher Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. B.) Defendants’ counsel attempted to meet and confer on a number of occasions, to which Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond. (Fisher Decl., ¶¶ 5-7, Ex. C.)

Defendants now move to compel the deposition of Plaintiff and for production of the subject vehicle for inspection, following multiple unsuccessful attempts to meet and confer. Defendants also request sanctions in the amount of $2,580.00. The motion to compel is unopposed.

DISCUSSION

Any party may obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010.) Service of a proper deposition notice is “effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify . . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280.) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party or party-affiliated deponent fails to appear or to proceed with the examination without having served a valid objection, the party noticing the deposition may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a).)

The Court finds that the deposition notice was properly served on Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff’s objections to the notice are not well-taken. Plaintiff’s vehicle is a tangible thing, and the deposition notice was served in a reasonably timely manner pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.270 and section 2025.280. Further, the Court finds that the Declaration of Christopher Fisher sufficiently evidences Defendants’ good faith efforts to meet and confer regarding the scheduling of the deposition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b)(2). Additionally, Defendants have shown good cause for the production of the vehicle for inspection, as the vehicle is the very subject of the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450.) Finally, the Court grants Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(g)(1) in the sum of $1,740.00, reducing the number of hours Defendants’ counsel estimated for reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply because this motion is unopposed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff and Production of Vehicle for Inspection is GRANTED. The Court orders that the deposition of Plaintiff and the vehicle inspection be conducted within 30 days of this Order, or on a later date, if agreed to be Defendants. The Court further orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,740.00 to Defendants within 20 days of this Order.

Defendants are to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: June 5, 2018

_____________________________

Howard L. Halm

Judge of the Superior Court