Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV23270, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV23270    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Jennifer Billings Richardson's Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Bakemark USA, LLC’ PMK

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

BACKGROUND

On June 19, 2020, Plaintiff Republic Indemnity Company of California (“RICC”) filed this action against Defendant Bakemark USA, LLC (“Defendant”) for reimbursement of workers’ compensation benefits (negligence and premises liability). 

On September 30, 2020, Defendant filed an answer. 

On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff Jennifer Billings (“Jennifer”) filed an action against Defendant for negligence and premises liability. On July 20, 2020, Plaintiffs, Jennifer and David Joseph Billings (“David”), filed the First Amended Complaint against Defendant, adding a cause of action for loss of consortium. 

On September 10, 2020, Defendant filed an answer. 

The two actions were consolidated. 

On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel the Deposition of the City’s PMK to be heard on March 2, 2023.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 19, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Jennifer requests the Court order the Defendant’s PMK(s) to appear for their deposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450 allows the Court to compel a party’s appearance and to produce documents.  

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action… without having served a valid objection… fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”  A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following: (1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.  (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

CCP § 2025.450 provides that if a motion made under 2025.450 is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

Misuse of the discovery process includes (c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense; (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery; and (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. CCP § 2023.010. 

DISCUSSION

Jennifer originally noticed the deposition of Defendant’s PMK on September 6, 2022. Defendant did not object to the PMK notice but requested an additional 30 days to determine who to present as PMK. Jennifer agreed to the extension, but Defendant never provided witnesses or dates.

Jennifer’s PMK notice complied with all requirements and parties agreed to conduct a PMK deposition—Defendant has simply provided to provide the necessary information to scheduled said deposition(s). Jennifer is entitled to timely discovery. The Court finds good cause and grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Jennifer Billings Richardson's Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Bakemark USA, LLC’ PMK is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to produce its PMK(s) for deposition(s) within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

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.