Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV21958, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21958    Hearing Date: March 11, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On July 7, 2022, Plaintiff Yajaera Ramirez (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Pacific Global Consolidators Inc., Oscar Delgado, and Does 1 to 50 for damages related to a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff alleges Oscar Delgado was driving a tractor while in the scope of employment with Pacific Global Consolidators Inc. (PGC).

Plaintiff served a notice of deposition and production of documents on Raymond Tse (“Tse”), PGC’s CEO, and a separate notice of deposition for PGC’s person most qualified (PMQ). PGC has identified Tse as its PMQ, and thus moves for a protective order quashing the deposition of Tse as CEO.

LEGAL STANDARD

Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025. 420(a).)

The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(b).)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.020, a court shall limit the scope of discovery if the court “determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” A “court may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person.” (Id.)¿The “motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.” (Id.) 

Similarly, courts must restrict the frequency or extent of a discovery method such as interrogatories or inspection of documents if it determines either of the following:

“(1) The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

(2) The selected method of discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.030.) This can be done by moving for a protective order.

MEET AND CONFER

The declaration of Ajay Sood does not specifically describe a meet and confer effort regarding the instant motion. Therefore, the requirement has not been met.

DISCUSSION

In Plaintiff’s most recent filing, Plaintiff indicates that no further deposition of Mr. Tse will be sought and therefore this motion is moot. In response, Defendant argues that sanctions are warranted. The Court finds that there was substantial justification for the dispute and therefore sanctions are not warranted.

The motion is therefore denied as moot.

Counsel for Defendant shall give notice and file a proof of service of such.