Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 19STCV43802, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV43802    Hearing Date: March 22, 2024    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 03/22/2024 – 8:30am
Case No: 19STCV43802
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name: ORLANDO PRICE v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, and DOES 1-20 inclusive

TENTATIVE RULING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPO

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint asserts two causes of action: (1) Dangerous Condition of Public Property and (2) Violation of Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §54.

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff, Orlando Price, moves this Court for an order compelling the deposition of Defendant’s Person(s) Most Qualified for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority re: ADA Compliance Pursuant to CCP §2025.010 et seq and 2025.230 et seq. and request for production of documents as specified in Plaintiff’s deposition notice.

PROCEDURAL

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Orlando Price

Responding Party: Defendant, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a Public Entity

Moving Papers:  Motion; Proposed Order; Separate Statement

Opposing Papers: Opposition

Reply Papers: Reply

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300(c)): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b), CRC 3.1300(a)): Ok
Correct Address: (CCP §1013, §1013a, §1013b): Ok

LEGAL STANDARD – MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Under CCP § 2025.450:

(a) 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.

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) 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.

(CCP §2025.450(a)-(b).)

TENTATIVE RULING
Generally speaking, Plaintiff argues that he has been trying to take the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ and that Defendant continues to object to the subject areas and documents to be produced. Defendant argues that when one of the depositions was re-noticed, it provided valid objections to the document request and refused to produce documents prior to the deposition. Defendant argues that the Plaintiff took the deposition off calendar prior to the deposition.

The Court will hear argument. Movant does not clearly explain how it meets the requirements of § 2025.450(a)-(b)(1) and (b)(2). At the hearing, Movant should explain how it is meeting the requirements of § 2025.450(a)-(b)(1) and (b)(2). Likewise, it is unclear how Defendant is arguing that Plaintiff has not met the requirements of § 2025.450(a)-(b)(1) and (b)(2).

SANCTIONS

 “If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.” (CCP §2025.450(g)(1).)

Plaintiff moves for sanctions under the wrong section and cites to 2031.300(c) which pertains to sanctions re: compelling inspection demands, not compelling a deposition.

Defendant argues sanctions are unwarranted because it fully intended to produce its PMQ for their deposition, and provided proper, valid objections, and Plaintiff’s cancellation of the deposition is of no fault due to Defendant.

The Court will hear argument as to sanctions.