Heather Ramirez-Kotey vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation

34-2023-00335002-CU-BC-GDS: Heather Ramirez-Kotey vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance (Andrea Mill Martin) in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

The motion to compel the deposition of Andrea Mill Martin and for sanctions, filed by Plaintiff Heather Ramirez-Kotey, is ruled upon as follows. RELEVANT FACTS This is a lemon law case brought under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, relating to a 2021 Honda Pilot, which Plaintiff leased on July 25, 2021. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that the CMBS in certain Honda vehicles, including Plaintiff’s vehicle, was defective and could cause it to dangerously malfunction while the vehicles were in operation.

Plaintiff further alleges that Honda was aware of the defect but failed to warn consumers such as herself about the defect and instead concealed the defects. Plaintiff’s Complaint further asserts that Defendant Honda committed fraud by omission, as well as various violations of the Song- Beverly Act. Trial has been set for October 20, 2026. On October 22, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendant Honda with a Notice of Deposition to produce Andrea Mill Martin for deposition on November 18, 2025. (Amidi Decl., ¶ 4 and Exh.

A.) Ms. Mill Martin is a Honda employee, serving as Safety Certification & Compliance Division Director in the Product Regulatory Office. (Martin Decl., ¶ 1.) According to Defendant, Ms. Mill Martin started her position with Defendant in October 2023, well after Plaintiff purchased the Vehicle. On November 3, 2025, Defendant Honda served written objections, stating it would not produce Ms. Mill Martin on the designated date. (Amidi Decl., ¶ 5, and Exh. B.) Defendants’ objections were primarily related to Ms.

Mill Martin’s alleged lack of personal knowledge regarding Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s Vehicle, the reasons Plaintiff took the Vehicle to be repaired or the allegations of the Complaint in this matter. Defendant further objected on the grounds that Defendant should be able to designate its own “person most qualified” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2017.010 and 2025.230. On November 18, 2025, Plaintiff sent a follow-up email to Defendant with the Zoom link to appear for the deposition and requested defense counsel supply alternative dates if Defendant refused to produce Ms.

Mill Martin as noticed. (Amidi Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. C.) Ms. Mill Martin did not appear for deposition and Plaintiff’s counsel took a certificate of non-appearance. (Amidi Decl., ¶ 7 and Exh. D.) On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent another email, noting the certificate of nonappearance, and again requested alternative dates for the deposition of Ms. Mill Martin and other Honda employees. (Amidi Decl., ¶ 8 and Exh. E.) It appears Defendant never provided any dates of availability. On January 2, 2026, Plaintiff informed Defendant via email that a motion to compel would be filed if no dates were provided by January 17, 2026.

There was no response to this request. (Amidi Dec., ¶ 8.)

34-2023-00335002-CU-BC-GDS: Heather Ramirez-Kotey vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance (Andrea Mill Martin) in Department 16C

Plaintiff now moves to compel the deposition. DISCUSSION Motions to compel deposition attendance and related production of documents are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450. Such motions 'shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2025.450(b)(2).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 states: “A meet and confer declaration in support of each motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issues presented by the motion.” The meet and confer requirement is “designed ‘to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order. [Citation.] This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Townsend v.

Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.) To satisfy this requirement, the moving party’s declaration must show “that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain ‘an informal resolution of each issue.’” (Ibid.) The Court concludes that Plaintiff has met this obligation; Defendant’s conduct, however, has necessitated a motion in a circumstance that reasonably could have been resolved without the Court’s intervention. Plaintiff contends she is entitled to discovery not only regarding the specific problems with her own vehicle, but also to information regarding Defendant’s knowledge that its vehicles contain defects – information which is relevant to whether Defendant historically and willfully failed to comply with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act because Defendant had knowledge of the type of defects Plaintiff alleges.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff seeks overbroad discovery and that Ms. Mill Martin has no knowledge of Plaintiff’s specific circumstances or vehicle. The Court disagrees. In her position, it is highly likely that, nearly three year into her job with Defendant, Ms. Mill Martin has become well acquainted with not just the substance of potential vehicle defects in Defendant’s products, but also the manner and means by which Defendant did (or did not) address those defects when they became known. Further, the Court rejects Defendant’s conclusory assertion raised in its Opposition that Ms.

Mill Martin’s deposition violates the procedure for noticing “apex” depositions of high-level corporate executives. Generally, when a plaintiff seeks to depose a corporate official at the highest level of management, and that official moves for a protective order to prohibit the deposition, the trial court must first determine whether the plaintiff has shown good cause that the official has unique or superior knowledge of discoverable information. If not, as is often the case in matters involving a large national or international corporation, the trial court will issue the protective order and first require the plaintiff to obtain

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00335002-CU-BC-GDS: Heather Ramirez-Kotey vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance (Andrea Mill Martin) in Department 16C

the necessary discovery through less intrusive means. (See, e.g., Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1287.) Here, Honda makes no real effort to establish that Ms. Mill Martin is an “apex” employee, as it fails to provide any evidence beyond her job title to establish that she is at the top of the corporate hierarchy. Moreover, while Defendant objected to the deposition based on Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230 (see Amidi Decl., Exh. B), Plaintiff here did not seek the corporate Person Most Qualified under that Code section, which would have permitted Defendant to designate its own corporate representative witness.

Indeed, the PMQ deposition apparently already occurred in August 2025 as far the Collision Mitigation Braking System. (See Reply, p. 3.) Instead, Plaintiff specifically seeks to depose Ms. Mill Martin based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s own research regarding Ms. Mill Martin’s knowledge regarding customer complaints and history. The Court concludes that the subjects for which Plaintiff seeks to depose Ms. Mill Martin are relevant. In the context of discovery, evidence is “relevant” if it “might reasonably lead to other admissible evidence.” (Lipton v.

Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612.) Plaintiff has demonstrated that the subject discovery meets this liberal standard. The discovery could lead to information regarding whether Defendant was aware of the defects alleged, whether it or its dealerships could repair them, and whether it refuses to repurchase the Vehicle. Whether such information ultimately will be admitted at trial is not the issue at this stage. Even to the extent Plaintiff seeks information concerning other vehicles with similar defects, the inquiry remains relevant. (See Donlen v.

Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138 154.) The Court finds Defendants’ arguments unpersuasive and concludes Plaintiff is entitled to the information Ms. Mill Martin may possess. For the foregoing reasons, the motion to compel deposition is granted. Mindful of the looming trial date, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer and find a mutually agreeable date to complete the deposition of Ms. Mill Martin no later than September 18, 2026. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(g) is granted.

The Court awards Plaintiff sanctions from Defendant in the amount of $1,500.00 ($500/hr x 3 hours). Sanctions shall be paid on or before September 18, 2026. If sanctions are not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare a formal order granting sanctions for the Court’s signature, and the order may be enforced by a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.) This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00335002-CU-BC-GDS: Heather Ramirez-Kotey vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance (Andrea Mill Martin) in Department 16C

calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts.

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000. 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.