Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 TIMOTHY J. GALE, an individual, and Case No.: 3:25-cv-1196-H-SBC PAOLA GALE, an individual, 13 ORDER FOLLOWING Plaintiffs, 14 MARCH 03, 2026 DISCOVERY v. DISPUTE CONFERENCE 15 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a 16 Delaware corporation, 17 Defendant. 18 19 On March 03, 2024, the Court held a discovery conference via Zoom. The Court 20 reviewed the parties’ joint statement of discovery dispute lodged on February 12, 2026, 21 and heard the parties’ respective positions. In dispute is the competency of Defendant’s 22 Rule 30(b)(6) witness.1 For the reasons set out on the record and set forth below, the Court 23 finds Sharleen Esquival to be a proper Rule 30(b)(6) witness and DENIES Plaintiffs’ 24 25 1 Also in dispute is the timeliness of Plaintiff’s objection to Defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness. 26 Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s failure to object during the deposition constituted a 27 waiver of the objection. However, because Plaintiff raises this objection within 45 days of the deposition, the Court finds that this issue has been timely raised. See Civ. 28 1 request for Defendant to produce either Nicole Buda or Julie Scranlon for an additional 2 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 The case arises from the alleged breaches of express and implied warranty pursuant 5 to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Dkt. No. 1.) On July 18, 2025, the parties 6 met for an early neutral evaluation. (Dkt. No. 5.) Shortly thereafter, the Court sent a 7 scheduling order, setting December 18, 2025, as the deadline for all fact discovery to be 8 completed. (Dkt. No. 6.) On December 18, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to extend 9 the fact discovery deadline to January 19, 2026, to allow the parties to complete the 10 deposition of Defendant’s designated Rule 30(b)(6) witness (Dkt. No. 8.) The Court 11 granted the motion on December 22, 2025. (Dkt. No. 9.) 12 On January 15, 2026, Plaintiffs deposed Sharleen Esquivel. (Joint Stat. of Disc. 13 Dispute 2:3-8.). The following day, Plaintiffs sent a meet-and-confer correspondence via 14 email to Defendant, contending that the witness’s testimony was deficient. Id. On 15 February 2, 2026, the parties held a telephonic meet and confer. Id. at 2:22-25. On February 16 12, 2026, the parties lodged a joint statement of discovery dispute. 17 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 18 Rule 36(b)(6) requires a party noticing a deponent of a public corporation to describe 19 the matters for examination “with reasonable particularity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). The 20 corporation must then designate one or more persons able to “testify about information 21 known or reasonably available to the organization.” Id. “The 30(b)(6) notice establishes 22 the minimum about which the witness must be prepared to testify, not the maximum.” 23 Moriarty v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 17-CV-1709-BTM-WVG, 2019 WL 1559143 at 24 *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2019) (quoting ChriMar Systems Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., 312 25 F.R.D. 560, 563 (N.D. Cal. 2016)). “[I]f the deponent does not know the answer to 26 questions outside the scope of the matters described in the notice, then that is the examining 27 party's problem.” Id. 28 “The testimony of a Rule 30(b)(6) designee represents the knowledge of the 1 corporation, not of the individual deponents.” Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. Vegas 2 Const. Co., Inc., 251 F.R.D. 534, 538 (D. Nev. 2008). A corporation need not designate 3 someone with personal knowledge; however, if a deponent does not have personal 4 knowledge, the corporation is obligated to prepare the deponent to “fully and unevasively 5 answer questions about the designated matter.” Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. 6 Whittaker Corp., CV 18-06825-GW-(RAOx), 2020 WL 8102054 at *8 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 7 2020) (quoting. id. at 539). It should be noted though, “if a party states it has no knowledge 8 or position as to a set of alleged facts or area of inquiry at a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, it 9 cannot argue for a contrary position at trial without introducing evidence explaining the 10 reasons for the change.” U.S. v. Taylor, 166 F.R.D. 356, 362 (M.D.N.C. 1996). 11 III. DISCUSSION 12 Applying these principles to the present dispute, the Court finds Defendant has 13 complied with its obligations under Rule 30(b)(6) and properly produced Ms. Esquival as 14 a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent. 15 Plaintiffs argue that Ms. Esquival lacked personal knowledge regarding the 16 evaluation of the subject vehicle’s repurchase request. (Joint Stat. of Disc. Dispute 2:6-8.) 17 However, Rule 30(b)(6) does not require a designated deponent to have personal 18 knowledge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Rather, the deponent must be prepared to fully 19 answer questions about the designated matter on behalf of the organization. See id. 20 Plaintiffs designated the following topic matters: “(1) Plaintiff’s request for 21 repurchase (Matter No. 1); (2) Ford’s policies and procedures for processing repurchase 22 requests (Matter No. 2); (3) communications with Plaintiff (Matter No. 3); and (5) Ford’s 23 research and investigation concerning Mr. Gale’s repurchase request (Matter No. 5).” 24 (Joint Stat. of Disc. Dispute 5:1-5). Based on the deposition transcript, Ms. Esquival was 25 prepared and competent to testify on the designated matters as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness. For 26 instance, when Plaintiffs’ counsel asked about Defendant’s review process, Ms. Esquival 27 appropriately provided: A. “So when we’re performing a review for customer’s request 28 for repurchase, we want to know about their experience with the 1 to know . . . the condition of the vehicle, things of that nature . . . 2 we really go on a fact-finding mission so that we can understand all [] of the facts and circumstances that pertain to a vehicle and 3 the customer.

4 (Dep. of Sharleen Esquival 35:13-22.) Furthermore, when shown a good faith review 5 document, Ms. Esquival fully and unevasively testified as to its contents and Defendant’s 6 general practice. 7 Q. Where do you see on the good faith review that it specifies 8 “indicate source where it shows the DMV registration”?

9 A. Well, scroll down. I want to see something, if we see it listed in the case notes here in this document. Scroll down for me, 10 please.

11 … 12 A. Okay, you can scroll up for a second. Right here. It looks like we have two line items that appear to be blank here. 13 … 14 A. But typically, we are entering the DMV record and standard 15 claims list in the case notes.

16 Id. at 63:1-22. Although Ms. Esquival did not have personal knowledge regarding the 17 documents, her deposition makes clear that her testimony was based on the contents of the 18 document. Q. But is it your understanding that the individual who would 19 know for certain as to which documents were looked at, which documents were not looked at, would be the one who did conduct 20 the review, which would be either Julie or Nicole Buda, either one of them two? 21 A. Oh, I don’t know. The document is pretty clear to me. 22 23 Id. at 70:19-71:1. 24 Plaintiffs may not have gathered the information they desired from Defendant’s Rule 25 30(b)(6) witness, but that is not the relevant inquiry. The deposition notice establishes the 26 minimum to which a deponent must be prepared to testify, and Ms. Esquival’s testimony 27 fulfils the requirement. Had Plaintiffs hoped to depose Ms. Buda or Ms. Scranlon, Plaintiffs 28 could have requested them accordingly. Indeed, Plaintiffs had every opportunity to depose 1 || their desired witnesses, yet Plaintiffs did not issue their 30(b)(6) deposition notice until one 2 ||month prior to the initial fact discovery deadline, and the deposition did not happen until 3 || the expiration of the original fact discovery period. 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons on the record and set forth above, the Court finds Sharleen Esquival 6 ||to be a proper Rule 30(b)(6) witness and DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for Defendants to 7 || produce either Nicole Buda or Julie Scranlon for an additional Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: March 9, 2026 10 GBF A.

13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28