Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV48594, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48594    Hearing Date: October 27, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Maria Lopez (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Northgate Gonzalez, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Person Most Knowledgeable’s (“PMK”) deposition and request for production of documents.  Plaintiff provides she has noticed Defendant’s PMK’s deposition three times, but the deposition has not gone forward because each time Defendant asserted meritless objections.  Plaintiff attests that most recently, on November 10, 2021, she noticed Defendant’s PMK’s deposition for December 10, 2021.  Plaintiff asserts that Defendant again objected to the notice refusing to produce its PMK and served boilerplate objections to the request for production of documents.  (Mot. Exhs. F and G.) 

CCP § 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.”  CCP § 2025.450 requires the Court to compel the deposition unless it finds a valid objection was served under §2025.410.

Here, Plaintiff asserts she has noticed Defendant’s PMK’s deposition multiple times, but each time Defendant asserted meritless objections and refused to produce its PMK or comply with the request for production of documents.  Plaintiff attests she has attempted to meet and confer with Defendant regarding its PMK’s deposition, but Defendant has not responded with available dates for the deposition.  Any opposition to the motion was due on or before October 14, 2022.  To date, no opposition has been filed.   It is the burden of the objecting party to support the applicability of a particular privilege or objection.  (See Denari v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1488, 1494-95.)  Because Defendant does not oppose the motion, it necessarily fails to establish the appropriateness of any objections asserted in response to Plaintiff’s deposition notice served on November 10, 2021. 

The motion to compel is unopposed and granted.  (CCP § 2025.450(a).)  Defendant Northgate Gonzalez, LLC is ordered to produce its PMK for deposition at a date, time, and location to be noticed by Plaintiff.  Plaintiff must give at least ten days’ notice of the deposition (notice extended per Code if by other than personal service).  Pursuant to CCP § 2025.310, at the election of either Plaintiff or Defendant, the deposition may be completed remotely. 

As to the production of documents included in the November 10, 2021 deposition notice, Plaintiff does not set forth good cause for the production of any documents.  (CCP § 2025.450(b)(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.”].)  Plaintiff asserts only that the documents demanded are all common and routine requests in a slip and fall case, and that Defendant’s objections are meritless.  However, Plaintiff does not provide any specific facts to justify the production of any documents or categories of documents in the deposition notice.  Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to the request for production of documents. 

CCP § 2025.450(g)(1) requires the court to impose sanctions unless it finds the deponent acted with substantial justification or there are circumstances that render imposition of sanctions unjust.  Here, the Court awards Plaintiff two hours for preparing the motion and one hour for appearing at the hearing all at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour, for a total attorney’s fees award of $600.  Further, Plaintiff is awarded the $60 motion filing fee as costs.

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Defendant and Defendant’s attorney of record, jointly and severally.  They are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through her attorney of record, in the total amount of $660, within twenty days. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

·       The Court is not available to hear oral argument on this date.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative and want oral argument, the hearing will have to be continued, and the parties must work with the clerk to find an available date for the continuance.

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 27^th day of October 2022