2016-00205612-CU-BC

Ivette Barajas vs. FCA US LLC

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Depositions

Filed By: Universal, Jon D.

Defendants FCA US LLC’s and Central Valley Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion to compel Plaintiffs’ depositions is ruled upon as

follows.

This is a lemon law case. Defendants have served three notices of Plaintiffs’ depositions. Defendants first served notices of depositions on March 10, 2017 for April 24th depositions. Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed her office did not receive the notices. Defendants thereafter served an amended notice for depositions to take place on August 23, 2017. Plaintiffs objected to the amended notice on the grounds that they were not available for the unilaterally set date. Defendants attempted to meet and confer regarding available dates, but Plaintiffs did not respond with dates. Defendants served a second amended notice for deposition on December 15, 2017. Plaintiffs objected on the grounds that they were not available for the unilaterally set date. Defense counsel appeared at the December 15th deposition and put Plaintiffs’ non-appearance on the record.

Defendants now move for an order compelling Plaintiffs’ deposition to take place on April 3, 2018.

Trial is scheduled for June 26, 2018.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants did not meet and confer with Plaintiffs to obtain their availability, and failed to sufficiently meet and confer prior to filing the motion. And, in any event, on January 5, 2018 (prior to the filing of the motion), Plaintiffs offered February 26th for the date of deposition. The February 26th deposition date was contingent on FCA providing dates for its PMK deposition. (Declaration of Nancy Zhang, Ex. A.) Defendants filed the motion on February 20, 2018.

The motion is DENIED. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendants did not adequately meet and confer prior to filing the motion. On January 5, 2018, Plaintiffs provided Defendants with an available deposition date. Although the taking of Plaintiffs’ depositions cannot be contingent upon Defendants providing PMK deposition dates, there is nothing in the record showing Defendants engaged in any meet and confer efforts after January 5th. Defendants did not file the instant motion until February 20th

— giving them over one month to meet and confer with Plaintiffs prior to filing the motion.

Both parties’ requests for sanctions is DENIED.