Vasquez v. Ford Motor Co., et al

19. Vasquez v. Ford Motor Co., et al, Case No. CIVSB2428108 Defendant’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff 7/17/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

Tentative Rulings The Court would GRANT. Parties will meet and confer and reach mutually agreeable dates within twenty (20) days. Alternatively, the parties may stipulate at hearing to a mutually agreeable date for the deposition. No sanctions were requested. Case Summary This is a lemon law case. Plaintiff contends that he purchased the subject vehicle and that it was manufactured, distributed, and warrantied by Defendant. Despite being covered by warranties, he alleges that Defendant failed to repair the vehicle in a reasonable number of attempts and failed to provide a replacement or restitution.

As such, in September of 2024, he filed suit for (1) violation of Section 1793.2(d) of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; (2) violation of section 1793.2(b) of the Act; (3) violation of Section 1793.2(a)(3) of the Act; (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (5) fraudulent inducement – concealment; and (6) negligent repair (as to Sunrise). Relevant here, on January 9, 2025, Defendant first served a notice of the deposition of Plaintiff. The deposition was initially set for February 24, 2025.

However, on February 21, 2025, Defendant served objections citing the unilateral setting of the date, among other things, but provided no alternative dates. This motion followed.

Analysis

Defendant Ford is seeking to obtain an order to compel Plaintiff to sit for his deposition. However, Plaintiff is not per se refusing to do so. However, Defendant has a right to be concerned: No deposition has occurred; trial is less than one month away; and the only dates presently offered by Plaintiff (August 16, 17, and 18) are after trial. An expression of willingness to be deposed is not equivalent to completing the deposition, particularly after repeated notices and nonappearances.

*** *** ***