Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCV19895, Date: 2025-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19895    Hearing Date: January 31, 2025    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Uzziel Ambriz’s motion to exclude testimony by Defendant General Motors, LLC’s expert, Bryan Jensen, is granted.

Plaintiff Uzziel Ambriz’s motion in the alternative to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors, LLC’s expert, Bryan Jensen, is denied as moot.

Plaintiff Uzziel Ambriz (“Ambriz”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to exclude Defendant General Motors, LLC’s (“GM”) (“Defendant”) expert, Bryan Jensen (“Jensen”), from testifying at the time of trial.  (Notice Motion, pg. 1.)  Plaintiff moves in the alternative for an order compelling Jensen’s deposition due to Defendant’s continued failure to provide dates for Jensen’s deposition to occur.  (Notice Motion, pg. 1.)

Background

On December 16, 2024, Defendant served its Designation of Expert Witnesses pursuant to C.C.P. §2034.  Defendant designated Jensen as its only retained expert.  (Decl. of Rabieian ¶4, Exh. 1.)  On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Jensen, pursuant to C.C.P. §2034.410.  (Decl. of Rabieian ¶5, Exh. 2.)

On December 23, 2024, Defendant served objections to Plaintiff’s deposition notice, including grounds that the deposition was unilaterally scheduled.   (Decl. of Rabieian ¶6, Exh. 3.)  On January 17, 2025, the parties engaged in a telephonic meet and confer where Plaintiff requested deposition dates and Defendant refused to provide them.  (Decl. of Rabieian ¶10.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on January 21, 2025.  Defendant filed its opposition on January 27, 2025.  As of the date of this hearing no reply has been filed.

Legal Standard

C.C.P. §2034.410 states, “[o]n receipt of an expert witness list from a party, any other party may take the deposition of any person on the list. The procedures for taking oral and written depositions set forth in Chapters 9 (commencing with Section 2025.010), 10 (commencing with Section 2026.010), and 11 (commencing with Section 2028.010) apply to a deposition of a listed trial expert witness except as provided in this article.”  (C.C.P. §2034.410.)

C.C.P. §2034.300 states, in part, “on objection of any party who has made a complete and timely compliance with Section 2034.260, the trial court shall exclude from evidence the expert opinion of any witness that is offered by any party who has unreasonably failed to do any of the following: . . . (d) Make that expert available for a deposition under Article 3.”  (C.C.P. §2034.300(d), emphasis added.)

Although C.C.P. §2034.300 does not define “unreasonable,” the “operative inquiry” is whether the party’s conduct compromises the purposes of the discovery statutes.  (Staub v. Kiley (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1447.)

Discussion

Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert, Jensen, is granted.

Defendant served its First Designation of Expert Witness on December 16, 2024.  (Decl. of Rabieian ¶4, Exh. 1.)  Plaintiff noticed Jensen’s deposition on December 16, 2024, but on December 23, 2024, Defendant objected and failed to provide dates.  (See Decl. of Rabieian ¶¶5-6, Exhs. 2-3.)  Plaintiff made further good faith efforts to meet and confer regarding dates to depose Jensen, but Defendant failed to provide dates.  (See Decl. of Rabieian ¶¶7-10, Exhs. 4-6.) 

First, as a threshold matter, Plaintiff demonstrates he has completely and timely complied with C.C.P. §2034.260. 

Second, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration demonstrates Defendant has unreasonably failed to make Jensen available for deposition by first objecting that the deposition was unilaterally set, and then by failing to provide alternate dates for Jensen’s availability and only indicating that it “may” consider making Jensen available for deposition.  (See Decl. of Rabieian ¶¶5-11.)  (Staub, 226 Cal.App.4th at pg. 1447.)  Defendant’s action appears to be  gamesmanship or a “comprehensive attempt to thwart the opposition from legitimate and necessary discovery,” justifying exclusion of evidence.  (Id.) 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Jensen’s testimony is granted.

Plaintiff moves in the alternative to compel Jensen’s deposition.  Plaintiff’s motion to compel Jensen’s deposition is denied as moot.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert, Jensen, is granted.

Plaintiff’s motion in the alternative to compel the deposition of Jensen is denied as moot.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  January _____, 2025