Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 19STCV28261, Date: 2023-11-15 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: SMCDept71@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.

If
the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling,
the Court will take the matter off calendar.




            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.

Plaintiff Katherine Bigelow’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Western Asset Management Company, LLC’s person most knowledgeable is granted. Defendant’s person most knowledgeable is ordered to appear for deposition and provide testimony on Deposition Topic Nos. 37, 38, and 39 in 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant is granted in the total amount of $8,542.50, payable within 20 days.

Plaintiff Katherine Bigelow (“Bigelow”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Western Asset Management Company, LLC’s (“WAM”) (“Defendant”) person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) to appear for deposition to provide further testimony on Plaintiff’s Topic Nos. 37, 38, and 39 (“Disputed Topics”). (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P §2070.010.)[1] Plaintiff further requests sanctions of no less than $8,482.50 against Defendant. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P §§2023.010 et seq., 2030.030(a), 2031.310(h).)

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s PMK to Attend Deposition, the Court rules as follows.

In April 2021, Plaintiff served a Notice of Deposition of Defendant’s PMK. (Decl. of Boyamian ¶12.) Initially, Defendant only agreed to produce deponents on topic Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 12-15, and 25-26 (out of 39). (Decl. of Boyamian ¶12.) Defendant’s refusal to produce a PMK deponent on the remaining topics resulted in an IDC on June 22, 2022, with Judge Bachner, and Judge Bachner agreed in full to proceed with an PMK deposition on all topics. (Decl. of Boyamian ¶12, Exh. G.)

On December 20, 2022, Defendant served its responses and objections to Plaintiff’s PMK Deposition Notice. (Decl. of Boyamian ¶13, Exh. H.)

On December 23, 2022, Defendant produced Robert Sibbrel (“Sibbrel”) as Defendant’s PMK. (Decl. of Boyamian ¶13.) However, at the deposition, Plaintiff’s Counsel learned that Defendant would not subject Sibbrel to a variety of topics, which again resulted in meet and confer efforts. (Decl. of Boyamian ¶13.)

While the Parties were able to resolve a majority of the outstanding topics, there remains three categories, the Disputed Topics, for which Defendants will not produce a PMK. (Decl. of Boyamian ¶13, Exh. I.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 13, 2023. Defendant filed its opposition on November 1, 2023. Plaintiff filed her reply on November 7, 2023.

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to C.C.P. §2025.450 and orders Defendant’s PMK to appear for deposition and provide testimony on the Disputed Topics in 20 days. Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to order Defendant to produce a PMK witness on Topic Nos. 37, 38, and 39 of Plaintiff’s notice.

The Court awards sanctions pursuant to C.C.P. §2023.030 in the amount of $8,542.50, calculated as follows:

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The Court notes there is no C.C.P. §2070.010. Based on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court believes Plaintiff intended to cite to C.C.P. §2017.010.