Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2022-00051907-CU-NP-NC, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 04, 2024

01/05/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00051907-CU-NP-NC PRINGLE VS. FAULKNER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 10/18/2023

The Motion to Compel Deposition brought by plaintiff Stephen Pringle (Plaintiff) is GRANTED, but with the caveat that Jennifer Faulkner may appear for deposition remotely.

Defendant Jennifer Faulkner (Defendant) is ORDERED to sit for deposition, remotely, on or before Friday, February 9, 2023 at a date and time to be select by the parties pursuant to meet and confer efforts. This date is deliberately set a bit further than a customary deposition time frame on account of the fact that the Court notes the existence of a pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings brought by Defendant that appears to rely on a Statement of Decision made by Judge Bacal in In the Matter of the Pringle Family Trust, Dated April 8, 2004, as Amended (19-45026), a judgment issued by Judge Kelety in the same case, on other orders made in that prior case (which appears to have been a bifurcated trial). (See ROA 72.) While the Court cannot fully consider the merits of that motion at this juncture, to the extent that it relies upon prior court orders and is brought by Defendant in a manner that may potentially dispose of the case, this Court is not inclined to foist the expense of a deposition upon the parties in a manner that might be wasteful if the matter can be addressed on its merits via prior rulings.

As that matter is currently set for hearing on January 19, 2023, this Court exercises some discretion and sets the deadline for completing the deposition out to February 9, 2023.

The Request for Monetary Sanctions made by Plaintiff is DENIED on grounds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification and/or that other circumstances make the imposition of a sanction unjust. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(g)(1).) The Request for Judicial Notice brought by Defendant is disposed as follows: --Item 1 (website article by the Honorable Jeffrey Galvin) – DENIED --Item 2 (minute order in S.D. Sup. Ct. Case No. 19-45026 (probate)) – GRANTED The first item, though written by a bench officer, appears to be an article and thus not subject to judicial notice. The second item, as a minute order from the Superior Court of California, is subject to judicial notice. (Evidence Code § 451, et seq.) The papers indicate that Plaintiff served one or more Notice of Deposition documents on Defendant (with some notable changing of the date that resulted in an inconvenience to Defendant). While it is true that Defendant is not exempt from deposition, reasonable meet and confer efforts should be made to accommodate her schedule. As such, the Court does not find Defendant's objection to the date change to have been unreasonable. That, however, does not appear to be the crux of the dispute between the Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3036429 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PRINGLE VS. FAULKNER [IMAGED]  37-2022-00051907-CU-NP-NC parties.

Defendant specifically recites in her opposition that Plaintiff, meaning Stephen Pringle individually (not his counsel) 'has been disruptive at a previous deposition.' As such, Defendant effectively objected to Mr. Pringle's presence by representing that she would only do a remote deposition. The Court finds this request reasonable. When it comes to remote depositions and who may elect to do them: 'Any of the above procedures [referencing remote deposition requests] [internal citation] (or any other discovery procedure) may be modified by court order...' (Weil and Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group, 2023) ¶ 8:649.10, citing Code of Civil Procedure § 2016.030, also citing California Rules of Court, rule 3.1010(d).) As this Court finds Defendant's request to participate in a remote deposition reasonable, the Court exercises the discretion to modify the procedure and accordingly approves Defendant's request to appear remotely for her deposition.

In making such finding, the Court is mindful that Plaintiff, the moving party, has not filed any reply brief to the arguments made by Defendant and thus the Court treats Defendant's request for a remote deposition as effectively 'unopposed.' Additionally, with regard to monetary sanctions, the Court notes first that Defendant is prevailing in her request to appear remotely such that her opposition is not without 'substantial justification.' Beyond that, however, the Court also notes that the moving party, Plaintiff, has requested monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,446.00. The basis for the request includes the following: 10. My normal billing rate is $450 per hour. I have spent 2 hours dealing with and researching Defendant's 'Opposition,' and communicating a meet and confer letter to her. An additional 2 hours was spent drafting this motion to compel. I anticipate an additional 2 1/2 hours of work to review Defendant's opposition, drafting a reply and attending the hearing on this motion. This totals six and one half hours at $450 per hour and $60 for the filing fee for the motion which totals $2,925.00 for attorney's fees.

11. The costs incurred regarding the deposition include $737.35 for the court reporter and $700.00 for the videographer. This totals $1,437.35. True and correct copies of the court reporter invoices are attached as Exhibit D to this declaration. (ROA 59, ¶¶ 10-11.) The court reporter and videographer costs are not awardable because the Court finds Defendant's objection to appearing remotely to have been a reasonable one.

As to the legal work, drafting meet and confer letters is generally not compensable as part of the cost to draft a motion to compel. The motion in question is quite sparse as drafted and appears to almost entirely be missing a memorandum of points and authorities (see ROA 58). In addition, to the extent that the declaration above discusses estimated time spent drafting a reply brief, the Court notes that there is no reply brief. A reply brief would be helpful to the Court in this matter if, indeed, the moving party disagrees with the request made in Defendant's opposition – i.e. the request that Defendant be permitted to sit for deposition remotely. The Court is unable to fully work-up a tentative ruling on a matter when the parties do not fully brief it. As such, the Court is not inclined to award monetary sanctions for anticipated work that was never done.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3036429