Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 19STCV10729, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling
All parties are
urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to
see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If
you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in
advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather
than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be
advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the
hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the
matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT
WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to
argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of
your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request
the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the
hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 19STCV10729 Hearing Date: May 15, 2023 Dept: 28
Plaintiff Jordan Nice's Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable
Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 28, 2019, Plaintiff Jordan Nice (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. (“Defendant”) for general negligence and premises liability.
On October 1, 2019, Defendant filed an answer.
On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable to be heard on May 15, 2023. On May 3, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition.
Trial is currently set for December 6, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff requests the Court order Defendant to produce their Persons Most Knowledgeable for a deposition within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.
Defendant requests the Court deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450 allows the Court to compel a party’s appearance and to produce documents.
“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action… without having served a valid objection… fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document 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 or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” 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 or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”
CCP § 2025.450 provides that if a motion made under 2025.450 is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition 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.
Misuse of the discovery process includes (c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense; (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery; and (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. CCP § 2023.010.
DISCUSSION
The Court previously ruled on the issue of taking Defendant’s PMK’s deposition on November 3, 2022. The Court denied the motion on the basis that there was no video surveillance of the area of the incident. According to Plaintiff, at the December 12, 2022, IDC, the Court stated it would allow a narrowly tailored deposition on the operational status of camera domes that are around the area of the incident. Plaintiff served a deposition notice tailored to this subject for February 6, 2023; Defendant objected to this notice and did not appear for the deposition.
Defendant claims that, on March 2, 2023, Defendant advised that it was willing to produce a PMK witness for a deposition at a mutually convenient time. Parties have since attempted to schedule the deposition. According to Defendant, Defendant proposed a date of May 9, 2023, but have not heard back either way.
The Court finds good cause. If the subject camera domes are non-operational, the PMK deposition will be quick and resolve the issue in finality. The Court grants the motion, in case parties have failed to set a deposition date by the time of the hearing at this motion. Should parties appear and indicate the May 9th deposition occurred, this motion will be deemed moot.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Jordan Nice's Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to produce their PMK for deposition within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.