Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV25874, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25874    Hearing Date: December 13, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Rakim Mayers’s Motion for Protective Order

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

BACKGROUND

On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff Terell Ephron (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Rakim Mayers (“Mayers”) for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence.

On September 15, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On October 14, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Protective Order to be heard on December 13, 2022.

Trial is currently scheduled for February 7, 2024.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court strike Plaintiff’s unilaterally set deposition date for Defendant for October 19, 2022.

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 may also make orders regarding the taking depositions, such as that a video recording be postponed until the moving party has adequate time to prepare, by discovery deposition or other means, for cross-examination. 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

Parties exchanged available dates following Defendant’s attempt to serve a deposition notice on Plaintiff. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff refused to provide dates and then unilaterally set a date for Plaintiff’s deposition of Defendant for October 19, 2022. Defendant allegedly bring this motion to stop this behavior.

There is no need for Court intervention at this time. Defendant is entitled to file a simple objection based upon the fact the deposition was set unilaterally; a Court order is not necessary, especially given that Plaintiff has not filed a motion to compel. Additionally, the deposition date has already long passed. The Court denies the motion but reminds parties to engage in good faith discovery.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Rakim Mayers’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.

            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.