Judge: Anne Kiley, Case: 21STCV12624, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV12624    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On April 2, 2021, plaintiff Margaret Bock filed this action against defendant City of La Mirada (City) and DOES 1 to 50 for the following causes of action: (1) general negligence and (2) premises liability.  The form complaint arises out of injuries that the plaintiff suffered when she tripped and fell on an uneven, displaced, and poorly lit portion of a sidewalk on City’s property while walking her dog.  

On June 21, 2021, City filed a cross-complaint against West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA) for the following: (1) indemnification, (2) apportionment of fault, (3) declaratory relief, (4) breach of contract, and (5) contribution. City alleges that it entered into an agreement with WCA wherein WCA agreed to defend and indemnify City for claims asserted by Plaintiff.

On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff named WCA as DOE 1.

On September 16, 2021, Plaintiff deposed Mark Stowell, City’s Person Most Knowledgeable.

On April 15, 2022, City filed a motion for summary judgment.  The Court denied the motion on August 9, 2022, finding that City failed to meet its burden to show the uplift in the subject sidewalk was a trivial defect as a matter of law. 

On June 7, 2022, WCA filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiff’s causes of action fail because Plaintiff cannot establish WCA owned the subject sidewalk or that WCA owed Plaintiff a duty of care. The Court denied the motion on April 24, 2023.  

On December 15, 2023, WCA moved to compel the deposition testimony of Mark Sowell in his individual capacity and the production of documents. City opposes.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

Generally, natural persons may not be deposed more than once without a court order based on a showing of good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610, subd. (a), (b).) This applies both to depositions by the party who took the first depo and to any other party served with the deposition notice, i.e., all parties are expected to examine the deponent during the first deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610, subd. (a).) However, this does not apply where that person was previously examined as an officer, director, or employee on behalf of an organization.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610, subd. (c)(1).)

If a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent’s attendance and testimony.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) 

The motion 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 the motion is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction 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).)

III.      DISCUSSION

The Court denies the motion for the following reasons:

First, WCA states that Stowell did not appear for his deposition and produce the requested documents, but WCA does not state that it contacted the deponent to inquire about his nonappearance. (Decl. McMahan, ¶ 4.)

Second, the motion does not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production of documents.

The Court denies the motion. It also denies the request for sanctions.

VI.      CONCLUSION

          The Court denies the motion.

Moving party to give notice. 

          Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

       Dated this 16th day of February 2024