Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 20STCV27675, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV27675 Hearing Date: April 25, 2023 Dept: 72
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND ORDER SETTING
DISCOVERY SEQUENCE
MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF
Date: 4/25/23
(8:30 AM)
Case: Solomon Aflalo v. Farmers
Insurance Exchange et al. (20STCV27675)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Solomon Aflalo’s Motion for Protective Order is
DENIED.
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Solomon
Aflalo is GRANTED.
I.
PLAINTIFF SOLOMON AFLALO’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER
Plaintiff Solomon Aflalo moves for a protective order
staying depositions until the depositions of witnesses listed in the notice of
motions are mutually scheduled.
During the Informal Discovery Conference, the Court discussed
the possibility that the parties agree to a deposition schedule. (Hale Decl. ¶
11 & Ex. 8 [“It also seems to me that the parties might be able to work out
a schedule and order who gets deposed going forward”].) However, the Court did
not state that plaintiff could condition the taking of his deposition on the
setting of a deposition schedule. Even if the parties indicated in their
stipulation for a trial continuance that they were coordinating a deposition
schedule (Hale Decl. ¶ 14 & Ex. 11), there was never any court order requiring
the setting of a deposition schedule.
It is undisputed (1) that defendants served deposition
notices on plaintiff on 9/18/20 for a deposition on 11/11/20, on 6/9/21 for a
deposition on 7/13/21, and on 12/15/22 for a deposition on 1/13/23 and (2) that
plaintiff still has not attended deposition. (Ferguson Decl. ¶¶ 2, 6, 22, 25
& Exs. A, D, T.) Under these circumstances, plaintiff cannot use defendants’
refusal to present deposition dates for their affiliated witnesses as a ground
for protective order. Plaintiff can serve deposition notices on the witnesses
and take any statutorily available measures should defendants not produce their
witnesses for deposition.
The motion is DENIED.
The Court declines to impose monetary sanctions. Although
plaintiff may not use the scheduling of the deposition of defendants’ witnesses
as a basis to refuse to attend his own deposition, defendants should provide
deposition dates to plaintiff, as plaintiff’s inquiry to defendants’ available
dates comports with the Court’s guidelines for civility. (See Super. Ct.
L.A. County, Civ. Div. Rules, appen. 3.A(e)(2), Guidelines for Civility in
Litigation, located at lacourt.org/courtrules/CurrentRulesAppendixPDF/Chap3Appendix3A.PDF
[“In scheduling depositions, reasonable consideration should be given to
accommodating schedules or opposing counsel and of the deponent, where it is
possible to do so without prejudicing the client’s rights”].)
II.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF SOLOMON AFLALO
As discussed above, it is undisputed (1) that defendants
served deposition notices on plaintiff on 9/18/20 for a deposition on 11/11/20,
on 6/9/21 for a deposition on 7/13/21, and on 12/15/22 for a deposition on
1/13/23 and (2) that plaintiff still has not attended deposition. (Ferguson
Decl. ¶¶ 2, 6, 22, 25 & Exs. A, D, T.) Irrespective of any dispute or
posturing with respect to the scheduling of defendants’ witnesses for
deposition, defendants are entitled to depose plaintiff. (CCP § 2025.210 et
seq.)
The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff Solomon Aflalo is ordered
to appear for deposition at Locke Lord LLP, 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2600,
Los Angeles, California 90071 on __________ at 10:00 AM.
The Court declines to impose monetary sanctions for the same
reasons stated with respect to plaintiff’s motion for protective order.