Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 24STCV01477, Date: 2025-03-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV01477 Hearing Date: March 13, 2025 Dept: 14
#6
Case Background
This is an action for negligence, products liability,
fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties, and loss of consortium.
Plaintiff alleges he fell ill after inhaling toxic dust generated by stone
products manufactured and distributed by Defendants.
On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff Cesar Manuel Gonzalez
Quiroz filed his Complaint against a large number of Defendants.
On February 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint.
On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint (SAC).
On September 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended
Complaint (TAC).
On February 24 and 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed motions to
compel depositions of persons most knowledgeable (PMKs) of Defendants Mohawk
Industry, Inc. (Mohawk), Dal-Tile LLC and Dal-Tile Distribution LLC
(collectively “Dal-Tile”), and San Fernando Marble & Granite, Inc. (SFMG).
On February 27, 2025, Thomas Crawford filed an
application to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant BMosaics, Inc.
On March 6, 2025, the affected Defendants filed
oppositions.
On March 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed replies.
Instant Pleading
Counsel Thomas M. Crawford moves to appear pro hac vice
for Defendant BMosaics, Inc. (BMosaics).
Plaintiff moves to compel the depositions of the PMKs
of Defendants Mohawk, Dal-Tile, and SFMG.
Decision
The petition to appear pro hac vice filed by Counsel
Thomas M. Crawford is GRANTED.
The motion to compel the depositions of PMKs of
Defendants Mohawk and Dal-Tile are GRANTED. Mohawk and Dal-Tile are ordered to
produce their PMKs for deposition within 10 days of this order.
Because Plaintiff’s motions were substantially similar
and straightforward, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is excessive. The Court
awards Plaintiff $1,360 each from Mohawk and the two Dal-Tile Defendants for
two hours of attorney time at a rate of $250 per hour and filing fees. Defendants
Dal-Tile LLC, Dal-Tile Distribution,
LLC, and Mohawk Industry, Inc. are to pay $1,360 each to Plaintiff Cesar Manuel
Gonzalez Quiroz within 20 days of this order.
The motion to compel the deposition on SFMG’s PMK is
DENIED.
Discussion
1.
Pro Hac Vice
Counsel Thomas M. Crawford moves to appear pro hac vice
for Defendant BMosaics.
Crawford
attests to his residence address and office address, which are in Colorado and
Illinois respectively. (Crawford Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.) He attests to all the courts
he has been admitted to (with dates of admission), that he is in good standing
with the State Bar of Illinois and Maryland, and that he is not currently
suspended or disbarred from practice in any court. (Id. at ¶¶-6.) Crawford
submits the name and address of the active California State Bar member with
whom he is associated. (Id. at ¶ 8.) He also attests that he has
appeared as counsel pro hac vice once in the state court of California
in the last two years. (Id. at ¶7.) Further, Ashley Morris, BMosaic’s
local counsel, testifies the requisite fee was sent to the State Bar of
California, and the Notice of Hearing and the instant application were served
on all interested parties and on the State Bar of California. (Morris Decl., ¶¶7-8.)
The
application is GRANTED. Counsel Crawford has complied with California Rules of
Court Rule 9.40.
2.
Motions to Compel Deposition
Plaintiff moves to compel the depositions of PMKs for
Defendants Mohawk, Dal-Tile, and SFMG.
Legal Standard
Any
party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral
deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc.,
section 2025.010.) A party desiring to take an oral deposition shall give a
notice in writing which states the specification of reasonably particularly of
any materials to be produced by the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., section
2025.220, subd. (a)(4).) A properly served deposition notice is effective to
require a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for
inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.280, subd. (a).) A party
served with a deposition notice waives any error or irregularity unless that
party promptly serves a written objection at least three calendar days prior to
the date for which the deposition is scheduled. (Code Civ. Proc., section
2025.410, subd. (a).)
“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, … 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 … described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., section
2025.450, subd. (a).)
If a
motion to compel deposition is granted, sanctions are mandatory in favor of the
party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with
whom the deponent is affiliated, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.450,
subd. (g)(1).) Sanctions
may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc.,
section 2023.030, subd. (a).)
Mohawk and Dal-Tile
Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that she served
deposition notices on Mohawk and the two Dal-Tile entities on January 6, 2025.
(Maneker Decl., ¶2.) All three Defendants objected to the notice and the
deposition did not proceed. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel served a second
deposition notice on Mohawk and Dal-Tile on January 24, 2025. (Id., ¶3.)
The depositions did not take place due to the three Defendants’ unavailability.
(Id.) The Defendants’ counsel failed to provide deposition dates despite
Plaintiff’s counsel’s requests for dates. (Id., ¶¶6-9.) Although the
parties discussed stipulating to using deposition testimony from prior
depositions in other cases, the parties never agreed on a stipulation. (Id.,
¶¶10-11.) The depositions seek information about whether these entities sold
artificial stone slabs to Plaintiff’s hirers, whether they knew of the hazards
of silica, and other relevant information. (Id., ¶¶14 or 15.)
In opposition, Mohawk and Dal-Tile argue that there is
no evidence that Plaintiff was ever exposed to an artificial stone product they
were responsible for. Mohawk and Dal-Tile argue that Plaintiff does not need
their PMK depositions because Plaintiff has already taken these depositions in
other cases and already dismissed these defendants in other cases. However, Dal-Tile
and Mohawk’s liability is still in dispute in this case. Mohawk and Dal-Tile’s
belief that they are not liable for Plaintiff’s injuries is no reason to refuse
to participate in discovery. Even if the same PMKs have been deposed in other
silicosis cases, Plaintiff has a right to obtain discovery through oral
depositions in this case and the parties have not stipulated to using previous
testimony.
Mohawk and Dal-Tile also argue Plaintiff did not meet
and confer properly before filing these motions. However, Plaintiff did request
deposition dates from Mohawk and Dal-Tile without success before filing these
motions. Although the Court normally requires parties to participate in an IDC
before filing discovery motions, trial preference was granted in this matter
and no IDC dates were available before trial. The Court granted Plaintiff’s ex
parte motion to advance the hearing dates on these motions despite the lack
of an IDC. The Court finds Plaintiff properly filed the motions.
Because Mohawk and the two Dal-Tile entities failed to
proceed with their properly noticed depositions, Plaintiff’s motions to compel
the depositions are GRANTED.
Because Plaintiff’s motions were substantially similar
and straightforward, Plaintiff’s request for over $3,000 in sanctions from each
Defendant is excessive. The Court awards Plaintiff $1,360 each from Mohawk and
the two Dal-Tile Defendants for two hours of attorney time at a rate of $250
per hour and filing fees.
SFMG
Plaintiff also moves to compel the deposition of SFMG’s
PMK. The parties agree that SFMG has provided deposition dates, March 11 and
13, 2025, since the date this motion was filed. However, Plaintiff represents
he will not withdraw the motion to compel until the depositions have concluded.
Assuming SFMG produced its PMK for deposition, the motion is denied. The Court
does not find under the circumstances that sanctions are justified here because
SFMG ultimately produced its PMK for deposition.
Conclusion
The petition to appear pro hac vice filed by Counsel
Thomas M. Crawford is GRANTED.
The motion to compel the depositions of PMKs of
Defendants Mohawk and Dal-Tile are GRANTED. Mohawk and Dal-Tile are ordered to
produce their PMKs for deposition within 10 days of this order.
Because Plaintiff’s motions were substantially similar
and straightforward, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is excessive. The Court
awards Plaintiff $1,360 each from Mohawk and the two Dal-Tile Defendants for
two hours of attorney time at a rate of $250 per hour and filing fees.
Defendants Dal-Tile LLC, Dal-Tile
Distribution, LLC, and Mohawk Industry, Inc. are to pay $1,360 each to
Plaintiff Cesar Manuel Gonzalez Quiroz within 20 days of this order.
The motion to compel the deposition on SFMG’s PMK is
DENIED.