BRITSCHGI, et al. vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION

24CV007883: BRITSCHGI, et al. vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION 12/12/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of the PMK and Production of Documents in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Stephanie M. Britschgi and Jeremy C. Britschgi’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Volkswagen Group of America Inc.’s (“Defendant”) person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) and production of documents is DENIED for failure to meet and confer in good faith.

Plaintiffs are admonished for failing to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4), which provides, “Unless they are submitted by a self-represented party, electronic exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.” Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers not being considered, matters being continued so that papers may be submitted in the proper format, and/or the imposition of sanctions.

No trial date is scheduled.

This is a Lemon Law action. On or about June 26, 2024, Plaintiffs served a notice of deposition of Defendant’s PMK for a July 18, 2024 deposition. (Declaration of Donald Mahnke (“Mahnke Decl.”), ¶ 18, Ex. 5.) Defendant served objections on July 9, 2024, objecting, in part, on the ground that the deponent/and or counsel were not available for the deposition date, and that they would agree to work with Plaintiff’s counsel to select a mutually convenient alternative date, if necessary. (Id., ¶ 19, Ex. 6.) On August 2, 2024, Plaintiffs served an Amended Notice of Deposition for a deposition on August 16, 2024. (Id., ¶ 20, Ex. 7.) Along with the Amended Notice, Plaintiffs included a meet and confer letter asking Defendant to provide alternative dates by August 9, 2024, for the deposition to occur on or before September 4, 2024. (Declaration of Roman Smith (“Smith Decl.”), ¶ 7, Ex. E.)

Plaintiffs suggest that Defendant did not respond to their August 2, 2024 letter, did not produce a PMK witness, and did not offer reasonable alternative PMK deposition dates. (Manhnke Decl., ¶ 23.) Defendant, however, provides evidence that on August 9, 2024, it sent three dates for the PMK deposition in early 2025. (Smith Dec., ¶ 10, Ex. H.) Defendant requested that within one week, Plaintiffs confirm which of the dates worked for them. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs did not respond. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on August 28, 2024.

On November 19, 2024, Defendant offered three new dates to occur in February 2025. Plaintiffs agreed to a February 5, 2025 deposition. (Smith Dec., ¶ 13, Ex. K.)

24CV007883: BRITSCHGI, et al. vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION 12/12/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of the PMK and Production of Documents in Department 54

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good faith prior to filing the motion. As noted above, Defendant provided deposition dates for early 2025, yet Plaintiffs filed the motion without any attempt to discuss deposition dates with Defendant. Plaintiffs contend that “Defendant’s conduct leading to Plaintiffs’ need to file the instant Motion, including by offering unreasonably belated availability for a multi-billion dollar company’s corporate witness’ deposition, raises the concern that VW may not follow through with its obligations under the Discovery Act and actually produce a PMK for deposition.” (Reply, 3:4-10.)

Again, however, Plaintiffs did not discuss those deposition dates with Defendant, and Plaintiffs provided no explanation as to why these deposition dates were unreasonable. Indeed, the parties have agreed to a February 5, 2025 deposition. (Smith Dec., ¶ 13, Ex. K.) Additionally, Plaintiffs’ concern that Defendant may not actually produce a PMK for deposition is placing the cart before the horse. To the extent Defendant does not produce a PMK as noticed and/or does not produce the requested documents, Plaintiffs may file a properly noticed motion to compel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480.

Plaintiffs' request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007883: BRITSCHGI, et al. vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION 12/12/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of the PMK and Production of Documents in Department 54

gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.