Richard Groscost v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

___________________________ Hon. Eric Harmon Judge of the Superior Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NORTHWEST DISTRICT | Richard Groscost, Plaintiff, v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC Defendants. | Case Number Department 25VECV06691 107 | COURT'S [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: Motion to Enforce CCP Section 871.26(j)(4) | [THE FOLLOWING IS A TENTATIVE RULING IN THE ABOVE CASE]: Deny I. BACKGROUND On or about August 16, 2022, Plaintiff Richard Groscost ("Plaintiff") purchased a 2022 Land Rover Sport (the "Vehicle"). (Complaint P. 4.) The Vehicle was defective. (Complaint P. 10.)

On November 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of express warranty obligations; (2) breach of implied warranty obligations; (3) failure to repair in a good and workmanlike manner; and (4) failure to repair within thirty days. On May 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce Code of Civil Procedure, section 871.26(c) (the "First Motion"). On June 18, 2026, the court granted the First Motion, ordered Defendant to produce its person most qualified for deposition within fifteen days of the order, and granted Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions in the sum of $2,500.00 to be paid by Defendant's counsel of record to Plaintiff's counsel within fifteen days of the order. (06/18/26 Minute Order

pp. 3-4.) On July 22, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26(j)(4) (the "Motion"). On August 18, 2026, Defendant filed an opposition. On August 24, 2026, Plaintiff filed a reply. II. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (c)(2) states: Within 120 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties have the right to conduct initial depositions, each not to exceed two hours, of the following deponents: [P.] . . . [P.] (2) The defendant, and if the defendant is not a natural person, the person who is most qualified to testify on the defendant's behalf.

This deposition shall be limited to the topics listed in subdivision (i). Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (j)(2) and (4) state: (j) Unless the party failing to comply with this section shows good cause, notwithstanding any other law and in addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to this chapter, a court shall impose sanctions as follows: [P.] . . . [P.] (2) A one-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($1,500) sanction against the plaintiff's attorney or two-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($2,500) sanction against the defense attorney respectively, paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the provisions relating to depositions as prescribed in subdivision (c). [P.] . . . [P.] (4) For a manufacturer's or defendant's repeated noncompliance with subdivision (b), (c), or (d), a court shall order that evidentiary sanctions attach precluding the manufacturer or defendant from introducing evidence at trial regarding whether the motor vehicle had a nonconformity that substantially impaired the use, value, or safety of the motor vehicle, or whether the motor vehicle was repaired to match the written warranty after a reasonable number of opportunities to do so.

III. DISCUSSION Plaintiff moves for an order enforcing Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (j)(4) and imposing evidentiary sanctions on Defendant after Defendant failed to produce its person most qualified ("PMQ") for deposition

following the court's June 18, 2026, order. (Motion p. 4.) Plaintiff also moves for monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 871.26, subdivision (j)(2) and 2023.30, subdivision (a). (Motion p. 2.) In opposition, Defendant argues the Motion should be denied because Plaintiff failed to file a separate statement with the Motion. (Opposition pp. 5-6.) Defendant also argues sanctions are not warranted here because Defendant has not repeatedly failed to comply with the statute and Defendant demonstrated good cause by offering July 30, 2026, and September 3, 2026, as deposition dates. (Opposition pp. 7-8.)

Defendant argues evidentiary sanctions are not warranted here because Defendant has not engaged in the type of egregious, bad faith misconduct warranting such sanctions. (Opposition p. 9.) Finally, Defendant argues Plaintiff is not entitled to additional monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) or section 871.26, subdivision (j)(2). (Opposition p. 10.) In reply, Plaintiff concedes Defendant paid the monetary sanctions. (Reply pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff argues they were not required to serve a separate statement because California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 does not apply to the Motion. (Reply p. 2.)

Plaintiff repeats their arguments evidentiary sanctions are mandatory here because Defendant has not produced its PMQ for deposition. (Reply p. 2.) Defendant cites California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a) and argues the Motion should be denied because Plaintiff failed to file and serve a separate statement. (Opposition p. 5.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a) states a motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions requires a separate statement. Plaintiff's notice of motion also states "[t]his Motion is further based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, the concurrently filed Separate Statement, the Declaration of Justin C.

Hung, and all pleadings, records, and papers on file herein, as well as such other oral arguments as may be presented at the hearing on this Motion." Thus, it appears to the court that Plaintiff intended to file and serve a separate statement but did not do so. The court is not persuaded a separate statement is necessary here. Although Plaintiff moves for evidentiary sanctions, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1) states "[a] separate statement is not required under the following circumstances: (1) When no response has been provided to the request for discovery . . ."

Here, there is no discovery response that is at issue in the present Motion. Thus, the court will consider the Motion. On June 18, 2026, the court found Defendant failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (c) by failing to produce its PMQ for deposition by the deadline. (06/18/26 Minute Order p. 3.) The court ordered Defendant to produce its PMQ for deposition within 15 days of the order. (06/18/26 Minute Order pp. 3-4.) Defendant's counsel submits a declaration stating they paid Plaintiff's counsel the monetary sanctions before the deadline. (Cho Declaration P.P. 4-5.)

Defendant's

counsel does not dispute that Defendant has failed to produce its PMQ for deposition but states its office "has maintained a consistent willingness to present a witness." (Cho Declaration P. 8.) The court appreciates that Defendant's counsel is willing to comply with the court's order. But willingness to produce its PMQ for deposition is not what Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (c), or what this court's order, require. Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (c) requires Defendant to produce its PMQ for initial deposition within 120 days of Defendant filing the answer or other responsive pleading.

As the court noted in its July 18, 2026, order, that deadline expired on May 5, 2026. (06/18/26 Minute Order p. 3.) The court's June 18, 2026, order set another deadline, that Defendant produce its PMQ for the required deposition within 15 days of that order. (06/18/26 Minute Order pp. 3-4.) That deadline expired on July 3, 2026. No deposition had occurred by that date. Defendant's opposition cites a "scheduling delay . . ." (Opposition p. 10.) A "scheduling delay" is not good cause for Defendant's failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (c) or this court's order.

Defendant states it offered July 30, 2026, as a date for the deposition and subsequently offered September 30, 2026, as the deposition date. (Opposition p. 8.) In the court's June 18, 2026, order, it noted Defendant offered the deposition date the same date Defendant filed its opposition to the First Motion. (06/18/26 Minute Order p. 2.) Similarly, Defendant offered the September 3, 2026, date the same day Defendant filed its opposition to the present Motion. (Cho Declaration Ex. A pdf p. 5.) Defendant appears to be engaging in the practice of waiting until the last possible moment to offer untimely deposition dates.

The court finds that Defendant's offering deposition dates does not constitute good cause for Defendant's failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (c) or this court's order Evidentiary sanctions under Code of Civil section 871.26, subdivision (j)(4) are not available here. Under that code section, evidentiary sanctions are mandatory for "repeated noncompliance with subdivision (b), (c), or (d) . . ." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26, subd. (j)(4).) Here, Defendant failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (c) and failed to comply with the court's June 18, 2026, order.

This is not repeated noncompliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivisions (b), (c), or (d). Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (j)(2) contemplates "[a] . . . ($2,500) sanction . . ." This language indicates the court may impose the sanction only once. The court already ordered Defendant's counsel to pay sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (j)(2). (06/18/26 Minute Order p. 4.) Additional sanctions under that section are not available. "A court may invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 only when confronted with an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions

provision." (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46, 74.) Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 discusses sanctions that may be imposed when a defendant fails to produce its PMQ for deposition under that section. This abuse is not unusual, a pattern, or not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is denied. Dated: August 31, 2026 _______- ___________________________ Hon. Eric Harmon Judge of the Superior Court Case Number: 26VECV01442 Hearing Date: August 31, 2026 Dept: 107 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NORTHWEST DISTRICT | Alan Waugh, Plaintiff, v.

Samy Omari, et al. Defendants. | Case Number Department 26VECV01442 107 | COURT'S [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: Demurrer without Motion to Strike | [THE FOLLOWING IS A TENTATIVE RULING IN THE ABOVE CASE]: Sustain with leave to amend I. BACKGROUND Defendant