Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV25305, Date: 2022-08-15 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: 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: 20STCV25305    Hearing Date: August 15, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Mackenzie Young Jay Kim’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendants’ Person Most Knowledgeable.

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

BACKGROUND

On July 7, 2020, Plaintiff Mackenzie Young Jay Kim (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Ralph Davis Wilson III (“Wilson”), Rasier, LLC (“Rasier”), Rasier-CA, LLC (“Rasier-CA”), Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber Tech”), and Uber USA, LLC (“Uber USA”) for negligence, negligence per se and statutory liability.

On October 6, 2020, Wilson filed an answer. On February 3, 2021, all other Defendants filed an answer.

On November 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Deposition of Uber Tech’s Person Most Qualified to be heard on June 15, 2022. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to July 1, 2022, and then again to July 14, 2022, and now to August 17, 2022.  Defendants filed an opposition on June 2, 2022. On June 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply. Parties filed a joint declaration on August 10, 2022.

Trial is currently scheduled for November 16, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court order Defendants to produce Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable for deposition and impose sanctions totaling $3,060.00.

Defendants request the Court deny the motion and impose sanctions on Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.

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

Parties have met and conferred on the issue and agreed to set a PMK deposition date for September 23, 2022. Parties request that the hearing be continued to approximately 30 days after the deposition date; the Court grants this request.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Mackenzie Young Jay Kim’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendants’ Person Most Knowledgeable is CONTINUED to October 27, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28 at the Spring Street Court House.

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.