Matthew Payne et al vs Ford Motor Company

Case Number

24CV02703

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 06/18/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motions to Compel (2)

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff by Tionna Carvalho; Tyson R. Smith.

Defendant by Michael Mortenson; Craig A. Taggart; Ravi K. Lally; Emma R. Maggio.

Issues

Two Motions to Compel

RULINGS

1. The Trial date of 12/10/25 and the MSC date of 7/11/25 are confirmed.
2. These are two motions by Ford Motor to compel the depositions of each of the two Plaintiffs. There does not appear to be any issue as to the right to take these depositions. Although the deposition notices include requests to produce documents, and written objections to such requests to produce were served, these objections are not at issue (no separate statement was filed (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5)) and the issue of whether documents are improperly withheld at the deposition is premature because no deposition has yet taken place. The only issues presented are for the Court to set deposition dates and to determine whether an award of monetary sanctions is appropriate.
3.  Ford Motor Company’s request that this Court grant its Motion and issue an order compelling Fen Liang and Matthew Payne to appear on a mutually agreeable date within two weeks of the hearing on Ford’s Motion is GRANTED.
4. Ford’s motion for sanctions against Plaintiff Fen Liang and their attorneys of record, Strategic Law Practices, APC, jointly and severally, in the amount of $560, payable to Ford by July 18, 2025, is GRANTED.
5. Ford’s motion for sanctions against Plaintiff Matthew Payne and their attorneys of record, Strategic Law Practices, APC, jointly and severally, in the amount of $560, payable to Ford by July 18, 2025, is GRANTED
6. Unless otherwise stipulated to by counsel at the CMC the deposition date set and ordered from the Courtroom

1. for the deposition of Fen Liang is Thursday June 26 at 9am; and,
2. for Matthew Payne is Friday June 27, 2025, at 9am. 

7. Ford to give notice.

The 2 Motions

Filed 4/10/25; both summarized here: The Motions are made pursuant to section 2025.450(a) of the California Code of Civil Procedure on the grounds that Plaintiff’s deposition has been properly noticed two times; Plaintiff

objected to both notices on the grounds of them being unilaterally noticed and being unavailable; Ford has requested Plaintiff’s availability on numerous occasions, but Plaintiff has never responded to any of Ford’s requests; and to date, Plaintiff has failed to appear for any of their properly noticed

depositions. Plaintiff’s failure to appear for their deposition is a violation of their obligations under the Code, is plainly dilatory, and stands to prejudice Ford’s ability to prepare its case and bring a motion for summary judgment should it be necessary.  Ford further moves the Court pursuant to section 2023.030(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Rule 3.1348(a) of the California Rules of Court for an order awarding monetary sanctions

against Plaintiffs and their attorneys of record, Strategic Legal Practices, APC, jointly and severally, in the amount of $560 [each] for costs and expense in bringing this Motion on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to submit to an authorized method of discovery without substantial justification. Pursuant to section 2016.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Ford made multiple attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiff in an effort to timely secure their deposition and avoid this Motion, but such efforts have been to no avail.

The Opposition

Filed 6/5/25; 7 pages; summarized: As is clear from Defendant’s moving papers and the Declaration of Tyson R. Smith filed concurrently herewith, the Parties have been actively attempting to schedule the Plaintiffs’ Depositions and, but for the unavailability of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ counsel or Defendant’s counsel, have been unable to complete the Depositions heretofore. Plaintiffs have never been unwilling to provide Defendant with a date for the Plaintiffs’ deposition, As of the date of this opposition, Plaintiffs are diligently working to provide Defendant with depositions dates for both Plaintiffs to take place sometime between June 16, 2025, and July 18, 2025.

Defendant is moving for an order compelling Plaintiff’s deposition under §§ 2025.450(a). Such a motion requires that a deponent fail to appear “without having served a valid objection.”  Nowhere in Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Deposition does Defendant argue or allege that Plaintiffs’ objections were invalid. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ counsel was available and

willing to meet and confer and to exchange witness dates with Defendant’s counsel. Indeed, on April 15, 2025, the Parties entered into a stipulation agreeing to Continue Trial Date and All Other Related Trial Dates in order facilitate the completion of discovery in this matter.

As an initial matter, Defendant has only served two unilateral Notices of Deposition of Plaintiffs. Plaintiff properly objected to Defendant’s unilaterally set Notices of Deposition of Plaintiffs. Counsel for Defendant made no effort to further contact Plaintiffs regarding the scheduling of Plaintiffs’ deposition since October of 2024. Defendant thereafter filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Matthew S. Payne based on only two unilaterally set deposition notices almost six months later in April of 2025.

Prior to filing a motion, the moving party must make a “reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2016.040

As evident in the Declaration of Emma R. Maggio, dated April 10, 2025, instead of meeting and conferring with Plaintiff in good faith, with no effort to contact Plaintiff’s counsel by telephone regarding the scheduling of alternative dates for Plaintiff’s deposition, Defendant simply filed this superfluous motion to compel based on issuing only two unilaterally set

deposition notices with no certificate of non-appearance. Indeed, Defendant

made no further effort to contact Plaintiffs regarding the scheduling of Plaintiffs’ deposition since October of 2024. Defendant thereafter filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Matthew S. Payne based on only two unilaterally set deposition notices almost six months later in April of 2025.

Here, Defendant’s limited willingness to engage Plaintiff’s counsel in a meaningful discussion on how to facilitate the deposition of the Plaintiff renders FMC’s attempt to “meet and confer” with Plaintiff meaningless. In other words, FMC is willing to “meet and confer” so long as Plaintiff agrees to its own terms. This was not a good faith effort to meet and confer and

is not a sufficient effort under the weight of authority.

As of the date of this opposition, Plaintiffs are diligently working to provide Defendant with depositions dates for both Plaintiffs to take place sometime between June 16, 2025, and July 18, 2025. Defendant has only served two unilateral Notices of Deposition of Plaintiffs. Plaintiff properly objected to Defendant’s unilaterally set Notices of Deposition of Plaintiffs. Counsel for Defendant made no effort to further contact Plaintiffs regarding the scheduling of Plaintiffs’ deposition since October of 2024. Defendant thereafter filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Matthew

S. Payne based on only two unilaterally set deposition notices almost six months later in April of 2025.

As evident in the Declaration of Emma R. Maggio, dated April 10, 2025, instead of meeting and conferring with Plaintiff in good faith, with no effort to contact Plaintiff’s counsel by telephone regarding the scheduling of alternative dates for Plaintiff’s deposition, Defendant simply filed this

superfluous motion to compel based on issuing only two unilaterally set deposition notices with no certificate of non-appearance. Indeed, Defendant made no further effort to contact Plaintiffs regarding the scheduling of Plaintiffs’ deposition since October of 2024.

Defendant thereafter filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Matthew S. Payne based on only two unilaterally set deposition notices almost six months later in April of 2025.

This motion was never necessary as Plaintiff was always willing to be deposed; at no point in time has Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that Plaintiff Matthew S. Payne was unwilling to be deposed.

The Reply

Plaintiff has engaged in repeated delays and obstructionist tactics to avoid appearing for deposition despite multiple properly notices by Ford.  Ford has been trying to secure the deposition of Plaintiff since June 2024 but has been unable to do so because of Plaintiff’s delay, obstruction, and failure to

comply with their discovery obligations under the Code of Civil Procedure.  Plaintiff’s Opposition fails to provide a legitimate justification for these delays, and their argument that Ford has not engaged in a good faith meet-and-confer effort is meritless.  Ford’s Motion and the Declaration of

Emma R. Maggio in Support of Ford’s Motion clearly demonstrate that Ford has made multiple efforts to schedule Plaintiff’s deposition, provided ample notice, and repeatedly sought alternative dates—all of which Plaintiff ignored.

Further, as detailed in Plaintiff’s Opposition and the Declaration of Tyson Smith in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition, Plaintiff has yet to provide Ford or even their own counsel with available dates for their deposition.  This is particularly troubling, given that Plaintiff initiated this action over

a year ago, and yet, refuses to participate in the discovery process.

Given that Plaintiff has failed to appear for any of their properly noticed depositions nor meaningfully respond to any of Ford’s numerous attempts to meet and confer, Ford was left with no choice but to file its Motion.  Ford repeatedly asked Plaintiff to provide alternative dates “if the noticed date does not work” yet Plaintiff never did so, repeatedly ignoring Ford’s pleas requesting Plaintiff’s availability.  The severity of Plaintiff’s stonewalling and dilatory tactics is further exemplified by the fact that Plaintiff indicated in each of their objections to Ford’s notices of deposition that “Plaintiff will meet and confer with Defendant to reschedule the deposition on a date and time that is mutually convenient]” yet never made even a remote effort to do so. 

Furthermore, in opposition, Plaintiff does not provide any explanation for why they refused to appear for any of their depositions or justify why they did not respond to Ford’s numerous meet-and-confer attempts.  Instead, Plaintiff baldly claims that “[t]his motion was never necessary as Plaintiffs were always willing to be deposed; at no point in time have Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel

indicated that Plaintiff Fen Liang was unwilling to be deposed.”  If that were true, then why has Plaintiff and their counsel, for over a year, repeatedly ignored Ford’s attempts to schedule the deposition?  To be clear, Ford reached out on at least three separate occasions asking for Plaintiff’s availability for deposition on a mutually agreeable date—Plaintiff

never responded. 

Most importantly, despite all this, Plaintiff has still not provided any dates for their deposition to occur.  Plaintiff’s Opposition states that they are “working to get Defendant a date to depose both Plaintiffs between the dates of June 6, 2025, and July 18, 2025.” 

Plaintiff’s position highlights their blatant disregard for their discovery obligations.  After nearly a year of delays and failing to appear for their deposition notices—Plaintiff still refuses to provide concrete deposition dates.  Instead, Plaintiff’s counsel vaguely assert that they are “working” to schedule depositions, without offering a single confirmed date.  Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit, yet a year later, they have failed to provide any dates for a deposition to occur.  The fact that their own counsel has no idea when Plaintiff might be available for their deposition further showcases the need for Ford’s Motion to compel their attendance. 

As demonstrated above, Ford was left with no choice but to file its Motion after multiple unsuccessful attempts to complete Plaintiff’s deposition and Plaintiff’s failure to provide alternative dates for the deposition to occur.  Plaintiff’s opposition fails to demonstrate that Ford either failed to properly notice the deposition or failed to adequately meet and confer.  For these reasons, the Court should grant Ford’s Motion and issue an order compelling Plaintiff to appear for deposition on a mutually agreeable date within two weeks of the hearing on Ford’s Motion.  Furthermore, the Court should impose sanctions against Plaintiff Fen Liang and their attorneys of record, Strategic Legal Practices, APC, jointly and severally, payable to Ford within 30 days of the hearing on this Motion.

The Court’s Conclusions

Here, Ford met and conferred to obtain Plaintiff’s deposition, but it was Plaintiff who failed to appear for any of their two properly noticed depositions.  Plaintiff has not raised any issues with Ford’s depositions notices, nor have Plaintiff argued that their objections excused their failure to

appear.  Plaintiff instead tries to shift the blame for their failure to appear for their depositions onto Ford. 

Plaintiff’s own counsel states that they do not have concrete dates from Plaintiff regarding availability for a deposition.  If Plaintiff is unwilling to provide their own counsel with availability, then the parties are left with no choice but to have the Court order that Plaintiff do so.  For these reasons, the Court should grant Ford’s Motion.

Sanctions are appropriate against Plaintiff. Ford has properly noticed Plaintiff’s deposition on several occasions, yet Plaintiff repeatedly failed to appear for their deposition.  Plaintiff’s failure to appear is without substantial justification.  Nowhere in Plaintiff’s Opposition does Plaintiff even provide any justification for Plaintiff’s repeated failure to appear for their properly noticed depositions.  This failure, as well as Ford’s fruitless attempts to obtain Plaintiff’s alternative availability, provides justification for imposing

sanctions.  Ford has tried, unsuccessfully, since it first noticed Plaintiff’s deposition in June 2024 to complete Plaintiff’s deposition.  Despite Ford’s meet-and-confer efforts and Ford’s multiple requests for Plaintiff’s alternative availability, Plaintiff has failed to appear and has still failed to

offer any concrete dates for the deposition to occur.  It is for this reason that Ford has requested that this Court award monetary sanctions in the modest amount of $560.00 [for each case] for attorney time and filing fees—an amount well below the time and expense actually incurred.