Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV13750, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV13750    Hearing Date: September 9, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Take Second Deposition of Defendant Ronald Moy, M.D. and Jeffrey So.

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

BACKGROUND

On April 22, 2019, Plaintiff Estate of Janice Weiner (“Estate”) filed this action against Defendants Ronald Moy (“Moy”) and Moy-Fincher-Chipps Surgery Center, Inc. (“MFC”) for general negligence.

On December 23, 2021, Plaintiffs Estate, Stacey Beth Fredlender (“Fredlender”) and Jodi Weiner (“Weiner”) filed the FAC against Defendants for medical malpractice.

On August 16, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Take Second Deposition of Defendant Ronald Moy, M.D. and Jeffrey So. On August 25, 2022, Defendants filed an opposition.

Trial is currently scheduled for October 26, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiffs request the Court grant leave to take a second deposition of Moy and Jeffrey So (“So”).

Defendants request the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.610 provides that leave to take subsequent depositions may be granted by the Court upon a showing of good cause.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs request leave to take another deposition of Moy and So, an employee of Moy’s. Among making the below arguments, Plaintiffs note they granted Defendants leave to take the second deposition of Plaintiffs following Decedent’s death. Defendants argue this was necessary because a new cause of action for wrongful death was added to the case.

Moy’s deposition was originally taken on January 3, 2020. Plaintiff claims that there are multiple differences between the deposition testimony and the testimony given at trial. For example, in his original deposition, Moy stated he was not present at the majority of Decedent’s office visits. At trial, on June 13, 2022, Moy testified that he personally attended all of Decedent’s office visits. He also provided different reasons for not performing a biopsy. Additionally, Plaintiffs have requested documents discussed at trial be produced, and wish to have Moy testify to the content of the documents.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are already getting the opportunity to depose Moy, as he is being produced as the PMK for MFC for the September 23, 2022, deposition. Defendants claim that he will testify on the issues Plaintiffs are pursuing. Because Moy will be appearing as PMK and not as an individual, the Court grants leave to depose Moy as an individual, once more. The focus of the deposition appears to be on Moy’s statements made as an individual. However, if Plaintiffs are able to obtain all relevant information during this PMK depo, Plaintiffs should not notice the second deposition of Moy.

So’s original deposition only lasted one hour, pursuant to Plaintiff’s own decision; Plaintiffs allege that his testimony also changed between his deposition and trial. However, Plaintiffs did not articulate what, if any, of these differences were. The Court does not find good cause to grant leave to re-depose So.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Take Second Deposition of Defendant Ronald Moy, M.D. is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Take Second Deposition of Jeffrey So is DENIED.

Parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to the next hearing on this motion and file a joint declaration by October 17, 2022.

            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.