Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV27110, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV27110    Hearing Date: March 9, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Corey Logsdon’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Neutron Holdings, Inc. Dba Lime’s PMK

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

BACKGROUND

On July 20, 2020, Plaintiff Corey Logsdon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Neutron Holdings, Inc. Dba Lime (“Lime”) and Church of Scientology International (“Church”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On August 27, 2020, Lime filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Church for indemnity, equitable contribution and declaratory relief.

On October 15, 2020, the Church filed an answer.

On December 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel the Deposition of Lime’s PMK to be heard on March 9, 2023.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 25, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court order the Lime'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

Plaintiff originally requested dates for Lime’s PMK’s deposition on October 20, 2020. Plaintiff has made repeated requests since that time, eventually serving a notice of deposition for September 2, 2022. Lime objected to the deposition without providing further dates; this happened one more time when Plaintiff attempted to serve a notice for October 3, 2022. Plaintiff has made multiple requests to schedule this deposition and is entitled to timely discovery. The Court finds good cause and grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Corey Logsdon’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Neutron Holdings, Inc. Dba Lime’s PMK is GRANTED. Lime 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.