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 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of Attendance of Custodian of Records in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Heather Ramirez-Kotey’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel the deposition of Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s (“AHM”) custodian of records is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff has conditionally lodged documents in support of the motion. CRC rule 2.550(3) provides that the rules governing sealing of documents do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings. Thus, no express findings pursuant to CRC Rule 2.550 are required. As a result, the clerk is directed to file and seal the conditionally lodged document. Plaintiff has filed redacted versions of the same.

This is a Lemon Law and fraudulent inducement/concealment action. Plaintiff alleges that she leased a new 2021 Honda Pilot that was equipped with a defective computerized driverassistance safety system and a defective collision mitigation braking system, known as Honda Sensing System. Pursuant to an order compelling production of documents in an unrelated case (Andy Meraz v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22AHCV01340) (“Meraz Action”), AHM produced to Plaintiff’s firm approximately 300,000 pages of documents related to alleged defects in the Honda Sensing System. (Declaration of Timothy Lupinek (“Lupinek Decl.”), ¶ 3.)

Thereafter, to limit and streamline discovery practice in this action, AHM stipulated that with respect to the documents produced in the Meraz Action, the parties may use the deposition transcripts of Scott Hunter and Chris Martin, and exhibits appended thereto in this action. (Id., Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s attorneys identified forty-three (43) of said documents for potential admission into evidence at trial in this case. (Id., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff then served the notice of deposition of AHM’s Custodian of Records regarding the 43 documents.

AHM objected to the deposition.

AHM’s counsel explains that he is informed and believes that the documents ordered to be produced in the Meraz Action were documents that originally had been produced in Cadena v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:18 CV-04007 (“Cadena Action”). (Declaration of Jeremy Freedman (“Freedman Decl.”), ¶ 4.) Those documents included over 330,000 documents produced by AHM on behalf of multiple entities, and concerned at least nine different vehicle model years, including 2018-2020 Honda Accords and 2017-2019 Honda CR-Vs. None of these model years include the 2021 Honda Pilot at issue in this case. (Id., ¶ 4.)

Trial is scheduled for October 20, 2026.

The following matters of examination are in dispute:

1. The identity(ies) of the duly authorized custodian(s) of each of the records, or other

34-2023-00335002-CU-BC-GDS: Heather Ramirez-Kotey vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of Attendance of Custodian of Records in Department 16C

qualified witness, with authority to certify the records described in Exhibit A.

2. The authenticity as a true copy of each of the records described in Exhibit A.

3. Whether each of the records described in Exhibit A was/were prepared by YOUR personnel, or personnel of any HONDA-AFFILIATED ENTITY as the case may be, in the ordinary course of business.

4. Whether each of the records described in Exhibit A was/were prepared at or near the time of the act, condition, or event.

5. The identity of each of the records described in Exhibit A.

6. A description of the mode of preparation of each of the records described in Exhibit A.

7. Whether the personnel preparing each of the records described in Exhibit A were acting within the scope of their authority and within the ordinary course of their job duties for YOU or such HONDA-AFFILIATED ENTITY, as the case may be.

AHM responded to each:

AHM objects to Matters Nos. 1 through 7 to the extent they seek testimony beyond the narrow scope of custodial authentication and instead call for testimony regarding corporate knowledge, internal procedures, investigative processes, engineering analysis, regulatory communications, or substantive interpretation of documents. These matters improperly seek expert, technical, and PMQ-level testimony and exceed the permissible scope of a custodian of records deposition.

(See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement.)

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.280(a)[1] provides:

[t]he service of a deposition notice under Section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280(a).)

Section 2025.450 provides:

(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an

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 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of Attendance of Custodian of Records in Department 16C

organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a).)

Analysis

Plaintiff insists that the deposition is required because it seeks testimony to establish the admissibility of the records at trial. They note that the matters of examination track the language of Evidence Code section 1561, which provides that records produced pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the custodian or other qualified witness, stating in substance:

(1) The affiant is the duly authorized custodian of the records or other qualified witness and has authority to certify the records.

(2) The copy is a true copy of all the records described in the subpoena duces tecum or search warrant, or pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1560, the records were delivered to the attorney, the attorney’s representative, or deposition officer for copying at the custodian’s or witness’ place of business, as the case may be.

(3) The records were prepared by the personnel of the business in the ordinary course of business at or near the time of the act, condition, or event.

(4) The identity of the records.

(5) A description of the mode of preparation of the records.

(Evid. Code § 1561(a).)

Plaintiff adds that there is good cause to compel the deposition because “the information sought is relevant to the admissibility of evidence produced by the Defendant at the trial of this action.” (Motion, 6:3-5.)

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 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of Attendance of Custodian of Records in Department 16C

AHM opposes. It first argues that service was defective because Plaintiff did not serve the Court’s ex parte order advancing the motion to today’s date. However, AHM filed an opposition on the merits, thus waiving the defects in notice. (See Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697 [“It is well settled that the appearance of a party at the hearing of a motion and his or her opposition to the motion on its merits is a waiver of any defects or irregularities in the notice of motion. (Citations.) This rule applies even when no notice was given at all.”].)

Citing to Cooley v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 1039 (“Cooley”), AHM next argues that it cannot furnish testimony regarding the documents because, as to 29 of the 43 documents, AHM did not prepare or generate the documents and is therefore unable to attest the identity of the records or their mode of preparation under Evidence Code section 1561, subdivisions (a)(4) and (5). (Freedman Decl., ¶ 12.) AHM adds that none of the 43 documents are relevant to the claims and defenses in this case because all 43 documents involve vehicles other than Plaintiff’s vehicle.

It further notes that Plaintiff mischaracterized the parties’ stipulation because the stipulation applied only to the deposition transcripts of Chris Martin and Scott Hunter taken in the Action, and the “stipulation does not extend to, and AHM has not otherwise agreed to, the admissibility, authenticity, or business-record status of the 43 documents at issue here.” (Opposition, 8:10-11.)[2] AHM lastly asserts that the discovery is premature because trial is months away, and no documents have yet been identified as trial exhibits.

Thus, “[c]ompelling a custodian deposition and corollary discovery now, months before trial and before any of these documents have even been identified as trial exhibits, is premature and unnecessary make-work.” (Opposition, 5:28-6:1.) AHM states that “[t]o the extent any of the documents are ultimately identified as trial exhibits in this case, AHM is willing to confer with Plaintiff regarding authentication and business record admissions for those documents, and any other AHM documents, at the appropriate time.” (Opposition, 6:2-4.)

Cooley involved a civil action stemming from a vehicle accident in which numerous people were killed. The motorist was being prosecuted by the District Attorney for vehicular manslaughter. (Cooley, supra, 140 Cal. App. 4th at 1042.) The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion to enforce a subpoena for the production of business records. The Court of Appeal held that the motion should have been denied because the District Attorney did not prepare the records sought by the plaintiff and was therefore not the custodian of those records. “[T]he custodian of records or other qualified witness contemplated by Evidence Code section 1561 must also be able to attest to various attributes of the records relevant to their authenticity and trustworthiness.

As such, execution of a section 1561 affidavit is more than simply a clerical task.” (Id., at 1044.) Given that the District Attorney in Cooley could not make the attestation required by the Evidence Code, section 1561, subdivision (a)(3), that the subpoenaed records had been prepared in the ordinary course of business at or near the time of the event, or subdivision (a)(4) and (5) regarding the identity of the records and a description of the mode of preparation of the records, Cooley confirmed that the District Attorney was not the custodian of records and thus that the

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 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of Attendance of Custodian of Records in Department 16C

trial court improperly granted the motion. (Id. at p. 1046.)

In the case at bar, AHM’s counsel affirms that as to 29 of the 43 documents, it did not prepare or generate these documents and is therefore unable to attest to the identity of the records or their mode of preparation under Evidence Code section 1561, subdivisions (a)(4) and (5). Yet, AHM’s own evidence shows that it prepared or generated 14 of the 43 documents, and fails to show how Cooley applies to those 14 documents. Additionally, AHM’s argument focuses solely on the custodian’s ability to attest to the identity of the records or their mode of preparation under Evidence Code section 1561, subdivisions (a)(4) and (5) – specifically matters of examination nos. 4-6.

AHM fails to explain why it cannot provide a custodian to provide testimony regarding the matters of examination 1-3, and 7 as to all 43 documents. The Court also disagrees with AHM that the matters of examination are not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence simply because the documents involve vehicles other than Plaintiff’s vehicle. The fact that none of the 43 documents pertain to Plaintiff’s vehicle is of no import since evidence regarding other vehicles with similar defects as Plaintiff’s could potentially be admissible at trial in a Lemon Law action.

For example, the subject documents could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding AHM’s knowledge of the defects, and that AHM lacks the means to fix the defects, and nevertheless refused to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle. Such information would certainly be relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for civil penalties under Civil Code section 1794(c), given that Plaintiff must show a willful failure by AHM in complying with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act. The Court is also not persuaded that the discovery is premature.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED.

AHM shall produce its Custodian of Records by no later than September 18, 2026, unless the parties agree in writing to a later date.

Pursuant to Section 2025.450(g)(1), Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against AHM and its attorneys of record, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $610 ($550/hr + $60 filing fee). Sanctions shall be paid by no later than September 18, 2026. If not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

AHM’s 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.)

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 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of Attendance of Custodian of Records in Department 16C

Moving counsel’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact AHM’s counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Defendant’s counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

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 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

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 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of Attendance of Custodian of Records in Department 16C

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.

[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. [2]] The Court notes, however, that AHM’s counsel’s declaration fails to provide any statement

supporting this argument. As such, AHM fails to provide evidence that the Stipulation does not extend to the 43 documents. (Porterville Citizens for Responsible Hillside Development v. City of Porterville (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 885, 895, fn. 9. [“It is axiomatic that arguments of counsel are not evidence”].)