Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV10975, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10975    Hearing Date: November 12, 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

MOTION

            Plaintiff Maria Vela-Zuniga’s (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (“Defendant”) person most qualified and the deposition of Tierra Charles. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes, and also seeks monetary sanctions. Plaintiff replies.

BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed May 15, 2023 and alleges injuries sustained as a passenger in Defendant’s vehicle. Trial was initially set for November 12, 2024.

            On October 17, 2024, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s ex parte application and continued trial to December 4, 2024. All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates remained associated with the prior trial date unless stipulated by the parties or pursuant to court order subject to a proper motion to reopen discovery. (Min. Order, 10/17/24.)

LEGAL STANDARD

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, 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.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b).)

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).)

MEET AND CONFER

The Declaration of Victor Vera, Plaintiff’s counsel, does not describe any meet and confer effort to schedule the depositions at issue after Defendant’s objection was served.

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff asserts that on September 27, 2024, she served deposition notices for Defendant’s person most qualified (“PMQ”) and Tierra Charles, set for October 11, 2024. (Vera Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A.) On October 4, 2024, Defendant served an objection based on unavailability, but then failed to provide alternative dates afterward. (Id. ¶ 6-7.) In opposition, Defendant asserts the objection was valid and has agreed to produce the deponents on a mutually agreeable date.

Despite the argument above, the discovery motion cut-off in this case is closed. Any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30^th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard before the 15^th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. (Code Civ. Proc.§ 2024.020 (a).)¿A trial court abuses its discretion in hearing a discovery motion past the deadlines in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 when it does not require the party to file a motion for leave to reopen discovery under section 2024.050. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc.¿(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1588.)¿¿¿ 

¿ 

Here, the discovery cut-offs are associated with the previous trial date of November 12, 2024. (Min. Order, 10/17/24.) Therefore, the last day to hear a discovery motion was October 28, 2024. Since the motions to compel depositions are being heard on November 12, 2024, they are untimely. Plaintiff has not discussed section 2024.050 in the motions. Therefore, the motions to compel are denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel the deposition of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Person Most Qualified and Tierra Charles are DENIED.

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