Case Number: BC628369 Hearing Date: March 06, 2018 Dept: 46

Case Number: BC628369
SONYA GREEN VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Filing Date: 07/26/2016
Case Type: Othr Breach Contr/Warr-not Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

3/6/2018
Motion To Compel PMK Deposition of Defendant Ford

TENTATIVE RULING

Motion is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2025.480. Ford is ordered to produce the PMK, as requested, for deposition for a date prior to 4/4/2018.

DISCUSSION

CCP § 2025.480 states, in relevant part, as follows:

(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.

(b) This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.…

(j) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

As noted in the court’s minute order from 2/15/18, the major issue raised by Ford was its desire to use the PMK deposition from another case in this case. The only reason for doing so would be to relieve a burden on Ford. However, it lies with Ford to prove the existence and severity of this burden, and Ford has supplied no opposition, despite the clear order of this court that courtesy copies of any opposition were to be lodged directly in Department 46, contemporaneous with filing. (Minute Order of 2/15/18; Notice of Ruling filed 2/16/18). Therefore, Ford has not met its burden to show the necessity of using the PMK deposition for another case in this case. D Ford’s other objections are addressed in turn below.

Ford’s objections based on proprietary or trade secret information are without merit, as a protective order already exists in this case to address these issues. (Order of 8/16/17).

Ford’s objections based on potential privilege issues are unripe. “Potential privilege” is not a valid objection. D Ford retains the right to assert privilege objections to specific questions and produce a privilege log with regard to documents at the time of the deposition. See CCP §§2031.240 & 2025.460.

Ford’s objections based on vagueness, overbreadth, and burden have not been properly supported. These objections succeed only where the question is totally unintelligible, or where requiring an answer would be oppressive. Weil & Brown, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 8:1084 “[T]o support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.” West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 C.2d 407, 417. The requests at issue are intelligible (see generally Plaintiff’s Separate Statement), so D Ford must show that they are oppressive. But as already noted, D Ford has not filed any opposition, let alone carried its burden of showing oppression.

For all these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant Ford must produce its PMK for deposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Frederick C. Shaller, Judge