Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV18212, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18212    Hearing Date: May 3, 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 August 2, 2023, Plaintiffs Jacob Brown and April Brown (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), Oscar Renee Lopez Velasquez (“Velasquez”), and Does 1 to 50 for negligence, negligent hiring, training, supervision, retention, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs allege that Jacob Brown was struck by a bus driven by Velasquez in the course of his employment with LACMTA.

Plaintiffs now move to compel the videotaped deposition of LACMTA’s person most knowledgeable and request for production of documents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 20205.450(a). Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Oscar Renee Lopez Velasquez (“Defendants”) oppose. No reply has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A party desiring to take an oral deposition shall give a notice in writing which states the specification of reasonably particularly of any materials to be produced by the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.220, subd. (a)(4).) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) The party served with a deposition notice waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).)  

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(a) provides: “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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing 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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”  Section 2025.450 requires the Court to compel the deposition unless it finds a valid objection was served under section 2025.410. 

A motion brought to compel a deposition “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition … by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).) 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(b)(1).)

If a motion to compel deposition is granted, sanctions are mandatory in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) 

MEET AND CONFER

The Declaration of Brian Poulter shows that Plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to contact LACMTA’s counsel to schedule this deposition. (Poulter Decl. ¶¶ 5–6.)

DISCUSSION

Here, on November 16, 2023, Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of LACMTA’s person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) to take place on December 7, 2023. (Poulter Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 2.) On November 30, 2023, LACMTA served an objection on the basis that the date was unilaterally set. (Id. ¶ 4, Exh. 3.) LACMTA also objected to each of the six requests for production attached to the notice. The objections were all identical arguing the requests violated the attorney client privilege, work product doctrine, contained trade secrets, and were not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

 Plaintiffs requested alternative dates for the PMK deposition on December 13, 2023, December 27, 2023, and January 3, 2024. (Id. ¶ 5–6.) LACMTA did not provide dates.

In opposition, Defendants contend the deposition of LACMTA’s PMK took place on April 4, 2024. (Citron Decl. ¶ 2.) According to Defendants, on April 19, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel told Defendants’ counsel that they were no longer seeking to compel the PMK or sanctions but continued to compel production of documents regarding LACMTA’s employee training materials. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs have not filed a reply.

Therefore, because Defendants’ assertions have not been disputed in a reply, the motion to compel the deposition of LACMTA’s PMK and request for monetary sanctions is denied as moot.

As for the requests for production, Plaintiffs requested documents pertaining to LACMTA’s training, and policies and procedures regarding safe bus driving, as well as records about Velasquez’s training. Reviewing the requests, the Court finds Plaintiffs have shown good cause to justify the production since the documents are related to their negligent training, supervision, and retention cause of action. In opposition, Defendants argue that the document requests are unnecessary since LACMTA’s PMK testified about the policies and procedures in her deposition. (Opp., 3.) Defendants also assert the documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, are trade secrets, and part of confidential personnel files.

Since Plaintiffs have not replied to the opposition, it is unclear if Plaintiffs still seek to compel the production of documents in light of the April 4, 2024 deposition testimony. If so, Plaintiffs should file a noticed motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the videotaped deposition of LACMTA’s person most knowledgeable and request for production of documents as moot without prejudice to filing a motion to compel production of the documents requested in the April 4, 2024 deposition notice.

Plaintiffs shall give notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.