Ibrar Shah, et al v. FAA Serramonte H, Inc., et al

5/21/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 2 of 13

Case Title / Nature of Case

2:00 PM LINE: 1 23-CIV-00341 IBRAR SHAH, ET AL VS. FAA SERRAMONTE H, INC., ET AL

IBRAR SHAH KADEN D. BYRON FAA SERRAMONTE H, INC., TIMOTHY D. ROBINETT

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL (CONTINUED FROM 5/07/2026)

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs Ibrar Shah’s and Roneel Raju’s motion to compel third-party Putnam Automotive, Inc.’s compliance with a deposition subpoena for deposition attendance and production of documents, filed September 22, 2025, is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ request that the Court hold Putnam Automotive, Inc. in contempt is DENIED. Putnam Automotive, Inc. is advised, however, that the Court will consider contempt proceedings or other appropriate sanctions for any future conduct demonstrating willful noncompliance.

BACKGROUND

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiffs Ibrar Shah and Roneel Raju purchased a used 2016 Jeep Wrangler from Defendant FAA H, Inc., dba Honda of Serramonte. Plaintiffs also purchased a service contract. Shortly after the purchase, the check engine light illuminated, and Putnam Automotive, Inc. diagnosed the vehicle as requiring a new engine. The service contract administrator allegedly declined coverage on the ground that the condition preexisted Plaintiffs’ purchase.

On July 1, 2025, Plaintiffs caused a deposition subpoena for personal appearance and production of documents to be served on Putnam Automotive, Inc. The deposition was noticed for July 23, 2025. Plaintiffs contend the subpoena was properly served by personal service. Putnam disputes proper service, asserting that the subpoena was served on Emily Vong, who Putnam contends was not its agent for service of process, was not a manager, and was not authorized to accept service of process or legal papers on Putnam’s behalf. Putnam submits the declaration of Heather Holley in support of that position and requests judicial notice of a Secretary of State Statement of Information identifying Kent Putnam as Putnam’s agent for service of process.

Before the July 23, 2025 deposition, Plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to contact Putnam regarding the subpoena. On July 23, 2025, counsel for Putnam, Andrew Stearns, contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel. Stearns stated that Putnam would not appear for the deposition that day because he had just learned of the matter, but he also stated that Putnam would work with Plaintiffs’ counsel to coordinate a mutually agreeable deposition date and, if the issue was limited to document production, would work on producing documents. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded that Plaintiffs believed the subpoena had been properly served, that no objection had been

5/21/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 3 of 13

received, and that Putnam needed to provide a PMQ deposition date before August 8, 2025 or Plaintiffs would seek court intervention.

The parties thereafter continued communicating about deposition scheduling. Plaintiffs’ counsel followed up on August 25, 2025. Putnam’s opposition reflects additional communications regarding deposition dates on or about October 17, 2025, November 29, 2025, December 4, 2025, December 26, 2025, and March 5, 2026. The deposition, however, was not completed.

Plaintiffs filed the present motion to compel on September 22, 2025. The motion was initially treated as unopposed, and the Court issued a tentative ruling granting the motion and ordering the parties and Putnam to appear regarding sanctions. Putnam later asserted that the motion had not been properly served on it because the motion was emailed to Stearns, who states he was not authorized to accept service of process or court papers for Putnam. The Court thereafter gave Putnam an opportunity to file opposition. Putnam filed opposition papers, supporting declarations, and a request for judicial notice, which the Court has considered.

LEGAL STANDARD

The parties are reminded that “[i]t is a central precept to the Civil Discovery Act of 1986 (§ 2016 et seq.) ... that civil discovery be essentially self-executing.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434.) The purpose of a self-executing discovery system is undermined when the trial court must intervene because a discovery dispute necessitates a motion to compel. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291.)

The Civil Discovery Act authorizes discovery from nonparties through oral depositions, written depositions, and depositions for the production of business records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010, subd. (a)(1)-(3); Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 127.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 requires a nonparty to provide discovery in accordance with a valid deposition subpoena.

“A deposition subpoena for business records directs a nonparty’s ‘custodian of records’ to deliver a copy of the requested documents to a ‘deposition officer’ or to make the original documents available to the subpoenaing party for inspection and copying.” (Unzipped Apparel, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 127; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2020.410, subd. (c), 2020.430, subds. (a)-(e).)

Where a deponent fails to appear or produce documents without serving a valid objection, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling attendance, testimony, and production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must be accompanied by a declaration showing the moving party contacted the deponent regarding the nonappearance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).) The Court shall grant the motion upon a showing of good cause unless the opposing party demonstrates that the discovery sought is unduly burdensome, inconvenient, or expensive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (c)-(f).)

DISCUSSION

Putnam Automotive, Inc., argues that the subpoena and motion were not properly served. The Court agrees that Putnam’s arguments support a finding that service of the subpoenas was defective, as the subpoenas appear to have been served on individuals who lacked authority to accept service on Putnam’s behalf. The Court recognizes that these contentions bear on the propriety of sanctions and on whether Putnam’s

5/21/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 4 of 13

noncompliance was willful. However, these arguments do not justify denying the motion to compel on the present record.

The record shows that Putnam received actual notice of the subpoena, retained counsel, and communicated with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the deposition. Putnam’s counsel advised Plaintiff’s counsel that the deposition would not proceed on July 23, 2025, but also stated that Putnam would work with Plaintiffs to find a mutually agreeable deposition date and could work on producing documents. The record further reflects additional communications concerning deposition scheduling over the following months, but the deposition was never completed.

The Court further finds the requested testimony and documents are relevant and discoverable. The subpoena seeks documents relating to the subject vehicle, repairs performed, parts ordered, communications concerning warranty claims, and communications with Defendant FAA H, Inc., dba Honda of Serramonte and Fidelity Warranty Services, Inc. Plaintiffs contend Putnam Automotive, Inc. submitted warranty claims relating to the vehicle that were denied on the basis of preexisting conditions. Accordingly, the requested discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence regarding the vehicle’s condition, the warranty claim process, and the basis for denial of coverage. Putnam does not substantively dispute the relevance or discoverability of these materials.

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance with the Deposition Subpoena is GRANTED. Putman Automotive, Inc., is ordered to appear for deposition and produce responsive documents within 30 days of service of this order, at a mutually agreeable date, time, and location. The parties and Putnam shall meet and confer immediately to select a deposition date. If they cannot agree, Plaintiff may unilaterally notice the deposition on no less than 5 days’ notice, subject to further order of the Court.

SANCTIONS

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (g)(1), provides that if a motion to compel attendance and production is granted, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction” against the deponent unless the Court finds substantial justification or circumstances making sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Given the showing concerning disputed service and counsel’s asserted lack of authority to accept service for Putnam, the court finds that monetary sanctions are DENIED. Putnam is advised, however, that failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions where appropriate, contempt proceedings, or other lawful relief.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare a written order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide notice of the ruling to all appearing parties as required by law. The Court further directs the parties’ attention to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (eff. Jan. 1, 2024) regarding the form of proposed orders.