NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al.

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Appearance at Deposition in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party 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, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

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.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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.

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Appearance at Deposition in Department 8D

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Plaintiff Kenneth Jay Namba’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This Lemon Law action arises out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2023 Honda CR-V, VIN 7FARS6H90PE036214 (the “Vehicle”). Plaintiff brings causes of action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

On March 20, 2026, Plaintiff served a notice of deposition for Defendant’s PMK. (Conn

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Appearance at Deposition in Department 8D

Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant served objections on Match 24, 2026. (Conn Decl., ¶ 6.) Defendant agreed to produce its PMK for deposition on August 7, 2026. (Conn Decl., ¶ 8.) Following further meet-and-confer exchanges in which Plaintiff requested an earlier deposition date, Defendant agreed to produce its PMK for deposition on July 20, 2026. (Conn Decl., ¶¶ 11-16.) Plaintiff again requested earlier dates for deposition, but was informed that no dates before July 20, 2026 would work for Defendant. (Conn Decl., ¶¶ 16-23.)

This matter is currently set for trial on September 14, 2026.

Plaintiff now moves to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK. Defendant opposes, arguing that Defendant has provided three potential dates for deposition: July 20, July 27, and August 7. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has delayed in prosecuting the instant case, and thus has unnecessarily created the necessity of motion practice.

Discussion

At the outset, the Court must remind all counsel but especially Defendant’s that given the number of motions such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally. This serves to highlight the critical need for all counsel's legitimate, reasonable and good faith meetand-confer efforts before the filing of any discovery motion. Although it dealt with a motion to compel answers to deposition questions, the decision of Townsend v.

Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 is instructive in that it clarifies that the meetand-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather it “requires a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Id., at 1438.) Nevertheless, the Court will address the merits of the instant motion.

Turning to the merits of this motion, the Court rejects the opposition's suggestion that Plaintiff has failed to properly meet and confer prior to bringing the instant motion, as Plaintiff was unwilling to accept deposition dates within two months before trial. Coupled with the opposition's failure to set forth any valid reason why the PMK deposition should not proceed, this Court shall exercise its discretion by granting the present motion to compel and ordering Defendant’s PMK to appear for deposition with the requested documents (subject to any timely asserted objections relative to the document requests, and to the extent that any such documents have not already been produced in full).

Disposition

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Appearance at Deposition in Department 8D

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff's motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK is GRANTED.

The PMK deposition shall commence no later than July 6, 2026 (unless Plaintiff agrees to a later date memorialized in writing). If not already done, the parties should promptly meet-and-confer in order to find a mutually agreeable date on or before this deadline.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.