Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV14174, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV14174    Hearing Date: April 29, 2025    Dept: 74

Edwards v. U.S. Bank, N.A. et al.

Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.’s Motion for a Protective Order as to Deposition of Sherry Benight

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises out of a mortgage foreclosure action.

Plaintiff Deanna Edwards (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendants U.S. Bank, N.A., as trustee; Mortgage Loan Trust; Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc; and MTC Financial Inc.  Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action regarding the foreclosure sale of her property.  

Plaintiff deposed Sherry Benight as Person Most Qualified (PMQ) for both U.S. Bank and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS).  Plaintiff noticed Sherry Benight for deposition as an individual on February 26, 2025.

SPS filed a protective order to prevent Plaintiff from depositing Sherry Benight (Benight) for a third time.

LEGAL STANDARD

            A party is entitled to take the deposition of any person who may have knowledge that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.  (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2017.010, 2020.010.)  A party may seek a protective order to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(b).) 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff noticed Benight for a third deposition on February 26, 2025.  Plaintiff had previously deposed Benight as PMQ for both U.S. Bank and SPS.  Defendant moves for a protective order to prohibit Plaintiff from taking a third deposition on the ground that the deposition is in bad faith and harassing and unduly burdensome.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.410(b).) 

            Defendant argue that Plaintiff has the burden of justifying the need to depose Benight a third time.  This improperly shifts the burden of a protective order.  For the Court to issue a protective order, Defendant must show good cause for a protective order.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(b); Emerson Elec. Co. v Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110.) 

            First, the Court finds Bright’s deposition is relevant to the processes and procedures that the underlying loan would have been subject to.

An opposition on the grounds of undue burden must include evidence showing the quantum of work required.  (William v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.)  Defendant alleges that the documents have already been produced and are not in the control of Bright.  Thus, no additional work would be necessary to produce them, or object on the grounds that the documents are not under the control of Bright. The only additional burden would be to Bright, who would need to spend the time being deposed.  Defendant cannot assert that permitting Bright to be deposed again in her individual capacity would be an unmanageable burden after previously designating Bright as the PMQ for two defendants.

Nevertheless, the Judge may restrict discovery when the discovery would be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2019.030(a).)  Defendant presents evidence that the further deposition of Bright would be largely duplicative on topics which have already been addressed.  Plaintiff presents that, essentially, they were displeased with Defendant’s provision of documents, and Brights review of those documents in previous PMQ testimony.  Plaintiff does not present any specific new issues which they wish to address with Bright.  The proper relief when a party fails to provide, or opposes, a discovery request is to file a motion to compel further.

The Court finds that compelling Bright to a third deposition on the same topics covered in previous would be unreasonably duplicative.  Thus, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order.

Defendant has not requested sanctions.  

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order.

            Defendant to give notice.