Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV46901, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV46901 Hearing Date: August 12, 2022 Dept: 28
Plaintiffs Chona A. Chua and
Fernando Y. Chua’s Motion for Protective Order
Having
considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On
December 8, 2020, Plaintiffs Chona A. Chua (“Chona”) and Fernando Y. Chua
(“Fernando”) filed this complaint against Defendant Chan Vinh Nguyen
(“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence.
Defendant
filed his answer on August 5, 2021.
On
March 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Protective Order to be heard on
August 12, 2022. On August 1, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition. On August 5,
2022, Plaintiffs filed a reply.
Trial
is currently scheduled for February 3, 2023
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiffs
request the Court grant Plaintiff a Protective Order to Preclude Defendant’s
Adjuster from Attending Depositions. Additionally, Plaintiff requests the Court
impose sanctions totaling $1,435.00 on Defendant, Defendant’s attorney and
Defendant’s adjuster.
Defendants
request the Court deny the motion.
LEGAL
STANDARD
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.
The
court may grant a protective order to prevent certain behavior at a deposition
if justice so requires or to protect a party from unwarranted annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. CCP § 2025.420. This
includes excluding designated persons other than parties, officers, and
counsel. The court shall impose sanctions against anyone who unsuccessfully
makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the
party acted with substantial justification.
DISCUSSION
Defendant
failed to designate the appearance of the adjuster at Plaintiffs’ depositions,
only being put on notice when Defendant informed Plaintiff that the scheduling
of Fernando’s deposition was inconvenient to the adjuster. The adjuster, who
was identified as “ZengerR” on the Zoom deposition screen was never identified,
and Plaintiffs’ attorney assumed she was a staff member of the reporter’s
agency. (Declaration of Raymond Feldman ¶ 4.)
Plaintiff
argues that, “Although CCP Section 2025.420(b)(12) permits a deponent, after
engaging in meet and confer under CCP Section 2016.040(b), to bring a motion
for a protective order to exclude a designated non-party, non-officer, or
non-counsel on a showing of causing unwarranted
annoyance, embarrassment or oppression, or undue burden and expense, where
such appearance was without even being designated, as was the case here, there
should be no need to show unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, etc. (it should
be presumed and the appearance should be declared unlawful..[one-sided paren in
the original]” Yet, Plaintiff offers no
support for the proposition, and the Court finds none.
The
Court finds that Plaintiff has made no showing as to any prejudice caused by Defendant’s
adjuster’s attending depositions in the case.
Plaintiff makes no showing of the adjuster causing unwarranted
annoyance, embarrassment or oppression, or undue burden and expense. The Court agrees that it was bad form for the
adjuster to have attended the deposition without having been announced but
finds no showing of injury to Plaintiff for her having done so. Accordingly, the Court will not issue a protective
order addressing either the past attendance or future attendances of Defendant’s
adjuster at depositions in this matter. Nonetheless, the Court admonishes
all counsel that all attendees to a deposition should be introduced and their
presence noted on the record.
CONCLUSION
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.