Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV06094, Date: 2023-03-14 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: 19STCV06094    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant City of West Hollywood’s Motion to Compel Third-Party Dr. Charles Skiba, DO’s Compliance with Deposition Subpoena

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On February 22, 2019, Plaintiff Raymond Contreras (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of West Hollywood (“City”) and Shanna Alexa Cruzat (“Cruzat”) for dangerous condition of public property and negligence. 

On May 7, 2019, the City filed an answer. On May 29, 2019, Cruzat filed an answer. On August 26, 2022, the Court dismissed Cruzat, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On May 20, 2019, the City filed a Cross-Complaint against Cruzat for indemnification and apportionment of fault. On September 6, 2019, Cruzat answered the Cross-Complaint. 

On December 9, 2022, the City filed a Motion to Compel Third-Party Dr. Charles Skiba, DO’s Compliance with Deposition Subpoena to be heard on March 14, 2023.

Trial is currently scheduled for April 27, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

The City requests that the Court order Third-Party Dr. Charles Skiba, DO (“Deponent”) to comply with the deposition subpoena. The City also requests the Court order that Deponent not force the city to pay a 2-hour minimum.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business records. (CCP § 2020.010.) A deposition subpoena may command the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things. (CCP § 2020.020.) The Court may order a third party to comply with a deposition subpoena upon any terms or condition as the court shall declare. (CCP § 1987.1.)

CRC Rule 3.1346 states “A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.”

DISCUSSION

According to the City’s proof of service, Deponent was served via personal service.

Deponent was identified as one of Plaintiff’s non-retained experts for this case. On November 23, 2022, the City served a deposition subpoena on Deponent for December 5, 2022. Deponent appeared, but insisted the deposition was not confirmed and requested payment upfront for a 2-hour minimum deposition. The City agreed to pay Deponent for the time taken after the deposition, but Deponent refused to sit for his deposition. The Court grants the motion as to compelling Deponent to appear for his deposition.

The Court further orders that the City need only tender Dr. Skiba’s hourly fee for the length of time the City estimates it will require Dr. Skiba for testimony.  Dr. Skiba is not entitled to any minimum.  (Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.430.)

CONCLUSION

Defendant City of West Hollywood’s Motion to Compel Third-Party Dr. Charles Skiba, DO’s Compliance with Deposition Subpoena is GRANTED Deponent is ordered to appear for a deposition within 30 days of the motion and to accept as payment his hourly fee times the time spent in deposition.

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.