Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 20STCV20720, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV20720    Hearing Date: April 14, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendants Ronald Pang and Pacific Bell Telephone Company’s Motions for Protective Order

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Xenia Esquivel (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ronald Pang (“Pang”) and Pacific Bell Telephone Company (“PBTC”) for motor vehicle negligence.

On July 22, 2020, PBTC filed an answer. On October 6, 2021, Pang filed an answer.

On January 5, 2023, Defendants filed Motions for Protective Order to be heard on April 10, 2023. The Court continued the hearing on the motions to April 10, 2023. On March 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On April 3, 2023, Defendants filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for June 14, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request the Court grant a protective order limiting the depositions of PBTC’s PMK and Pang.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion and impose sanctions totaling $3,600.00.

LEGAL STANDARD

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.

The court may grant a protective order to prevent certain behavior at a deposition if justice so requires or to protect a party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. CCP § 2025.420. This includes excluding designated persons other than parties, officers, and counsel. The court shall impose sanctions against anyone who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the party acted with substantial justification.

Code of Civil Procedure §1987.1: (a) If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person. (b) The following persons may make a motion pursuant to subdivision (a): (1) A party. (2) A witness. (3) A consumer described in Section 1985.3. (4) An employee described in Section 1985.6. (5) A person whose personally identifying information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1798.79.8 of the Civil Code, is sought in connection with an underlying action involving that person’s exercise of free speech rights.

DISCUSSION

Defendants request the Court issue a protective order preventing the deposition of PBTC’s PMK/PMQ. Plaintiff seeks to depose the PMQ on topics such as driver training, employee manuals, driving policies and procedures, monitoring employees, hiring of Pang, prior automobile accidents involving Pang, and discipline of Pang.

Defendants also request the Court issue a protective order preventing Plaintiff from deposing Pang about liability for the accident or negligent entrustment, hiring or retention. They specifically request the Court limit the deposition to observations about the nature of the impact, conversations between parties and observation of Plaintiff and whether any party suffered any injury from this incident.

Defendants have already stipulated to liability and to not assert comparative fault. They did not stipulate to the fact that “the accident caused each of the injuries Plaintiff alleges were caused by the accident, the reasonableness and necessity of the medical care provided to Plaintiff, the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages asserted by Plaintiff, or anything beyond liability for causing the accident as set forth.” As such, the primary issue subject to litigation is damages and causation of alleged damages.

Plaintiff argues that these depositions are critical to prepare for trial, specifically noting that Defendants have asserted 25 affirmative defenses. However, Defendants have already stipulated to liability for the incident; the issue at this point is determining the relevant damages and cause of said damages.

Given that liability has already been established, any discovery into liability is irrelevant, burdensome and unnecessarily cumulative. None of the subjects outlined by the PMK deposition would relate to damages or causation of damages. The PMK was not at the scene at the time of the accident and would not be able to testify to anything relating to those subjects. The Court grants the motion as to the PMK deposition, deeming it quashed.

Similarly, the Court finds an adequate basis to limit the questions posed to Pang, as Defendants have already admitted to liability. Plaintiff is ordered to not ask any questions about liability or negligent entrustment, hiring or retention. This includes any information regarding training, employment disciplinary, driving records, or other employment records, outside of the context of potential claims for punitive damages. Plaintiff may ask about subjects relating to causation and damages. This would include questions about the conditions at the time of the incident, impact, speed of any cars, observations of the scene, observations of Plaintiff, statements made by Pang that relate to causation or damages, or others involved in the accident, damages, insurance information, etc. Plaintiff may also ask questions regarding potential aggravating factors that may give rise to punitive damages; although Plaintiff has not yet made a claim for punitive damages, Plaintiff may wish to pursue a claim following the discovery of

information during this deposition. Pang may be asked to produce documents into relevant categories; should Pang have already provided all relevant documents in previous discovery, Pang may indicate as such in his responses.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Ronald Pang and Pacific Bell Telephone Company’s Motions for Protective Order are GRANTED.

The deposition of PBTC’s PMK/PMQ is quashed.

Plaintiffs may only ask questions regarding causation and damages at the deposition of Pang.

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.