Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00361, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00361    Hearing Date: November 15, 2024    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 11/15/2024 – 8:30am
Case No: 23GDCV00361
Trial Date: 01/06/2025
Case Name: ANA GONZALEZ v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

2 TENTATIVE RULINGS

TENTATIVE RULINGS

Plaintiff, Ana Gonzalez, has two motions on calendar for Friday, 11/15/2024.

One motion ends with Res ID 4238 (Motion 4238), and another motion ends with Res ID 8732 (Motion 8732).

In Motion 4238, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s PMK deposition pertaining to matters for examination 1-118 and responses to request for production of documents, numbers 1-122.

In Motion 8732, Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s to RFPs, Set Two, Request numbers 1-155.

With respect to Motion 4238, the Court cites to CCP § 2025.450(b)(1)-(2):

(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).)

“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP § 2016.040.)

With respect to the meet and confer requirement, Plaintiff did not meet and confer.

Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration explains how the amended deposition notice was served on August 8, 2024. (Segoyan Decl. ¶ 19.)

However, Segoyan also states he met and conferred about the deposition notice on August 8, 2024. (Segoyan Decl. ¶ 21.)

This makes little sense because that means Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer regarding the amended deposition notice on the same day the deposition notice was sent. Therefore, Plaintiff’s meet and confer on August 8, 2024 could not have possibly addressed the issues raised in this motion when Defendant did not respond to the deposition notice until August 16, 2024.

Further, with respect to the latter half of 2025.450(b)(2), “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,” Plaintiff also did not meet this requirement.

Plaintiff attached as Exhibit 9 to the Segoyan Declaration an email in which Plaintiff is trying to confirm the deposition date.

Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration did not state that Plaintiff contacted the deponent about a nonappearance for a deposition. This is likely the case because Plaintiff’s counsel was aware that the deposition scheduled for August 22, 2024 in the amended deposition notice did not work for Defendant.

Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration does not state that Defendant failed to attend a noticed deposition, nor does Plaintiff’s counsel state that Plaintiff contacted deponent about a nonappearance.

In light of the stipulation and protective filed on 11/8/2024 in this matter, both parties are ordered to further meet and confer on both motions – Motion 4238 and Motion 8732.