Judge Anne Hwang, Case Number: 22STCV26535, Date: 2024-10-01 Tentative Ruling

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.

Plaintiff Claudia Yareli Carrasco (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Tyrell Edward Pate (“Pate”) to attend a deposition. Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Tyrell Edward Pate (“Defendants”) oppose and Plaintiff replies.

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . , without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

“A motion under subdivision (a) [above] shall comply with both of the following:

1. The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

2. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

If a motion is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of that party unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450 (g).)

The Declaration of Pamela Rodriguez, Plaintiff’s counsel, states that following Pate’s non-appearance at the May 29, 2024 deposition, she continued meet-and-confer attempts regarding Pate’s non-appearance by sending an electronic message proposing solutions for addressing his disappearance. This message went unanswered. (Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 11.)

Plaintiff alleges that she was injured after Pate, who was driving for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”), collided into her car through a red light. On October 3, 2022, Defendants’ counsel filed an answer on Pate’s behalf.

On May 16, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendants with a second amended deposition notice for Pate, set for May 29, 2024. (Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. B.) Defendants served an objection on May 22, 2024. Pate failed to appear for the deposition. Afterward, Defendants informed Plaintiff they had lost contact with Pate. Plaintiff asserts she has tried to meet and confer to propose solutions for Pate’s disappearance, but Defendants have been unresponsive.

In opposition, Defendants contend that Pate is no longer employed with MTA, and they have sent communications to Pate to cooperate. Defendants also appear to argue the deposition is unnecessary, since they have admitted vicarious liability for Pate’s conduct.

While Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not “need” Pate’s testimony, the Court notes that Pate is alleged to be a percipient witness to the accident, and therefore, his testimony appears relevant.[1]

However, Plaintiff has not provided a copy of Defendant’s objection that was served on May 22, 2024, and therefore cannot determine if the objection had merit. Since it appears that the objection was timely served, the motion to compel is denied.

Nevertheless, the parties are strongly encouraged to meaningfully meet and confer to find a solution for Pate’s non-participation in this case.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.

[1] Defendants also discuss how negligent hiring and supervision claims cannot be brought against a public entity absent a statutory basis, and that such evidence would be irrelevant in any case since they have admitted vicarious liability. (Opp., 8.) However, Defendants do not contend they have admitted liability, as Plaintiff notes in reply. Therefore, Pate’s testimony is still relevant to determine liability for the accident.

DEPT:	32
HEARING DATE:	October 1, 2024
CASE NUMBER:	22STCV26535
MOTIONS:	Motion to Compel Defendant Tyrell Edward Pate to Attend Deposition
MOVING PARTY:	Plaintiff Claudia Yareli Carrasco
OPPOSING PARTY:	Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Tyrell Edward Pate