Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV36294, Date: 2025-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36294    Hearing Date: March 12, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Jane Woodworth initiated this employment discrimination action on October 1, 2021. The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on January 10, 2022, and alleges 15 causes of action based on FEHA, CFRA, Labor Code, and UCL.

Plaintiff worked for Wells Fargo as a bank teller for over 30 years until she was terminated at the age of 73. Plaintiff suffered from a disability due to injuries sustained at work. Wells Fargo accommodated Plaintiff’s disability until new management arrived and allegedly began mistreating Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants harassed and discriminated against her based on various protected characteristics, including her age, disability, and gender.

On February 21, 2025, Defendant Wells Fargo filed the instant motion to compel completion of Plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff filed her opposition on March 3, 2025. Defendant filed its reply on March 6, 2025.   

LEGAL STANDARD

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination . . . or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, 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 … described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff’s deposition was first noticed in January 2024 and scheduled for February 2024. (Han Decl. ¶ 5.) After Plaintiff cancelled the deposition due to a medical issue, the deposition was re-noticed for a later date in February 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.) Plaintiff’s deposition began on February 23, 2024, but did not conclude, as the parties had agreed that the deposition would take more than one day. (Id., ¶ 9.) The parties subsequently agreed to continue the deposition to April 8, 2024, and Defendant issued a deposition notice accordingly. (Id., ¶¶ 11-12.) However, Plaintiff cancelled the April 8 deposition due to her counsel’s medical issue. (Id., ¶ 13.) The deposition eventually resumed on May 6, 2024 but was not completed. (Id., ¶ 16.) The parties agreed to a third day of deposition. (Ibid.)

            Defendant served a notice of deposition setting the deposition for May 22, 2024. (Han Decl. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff’s counsel again cancelled the deposition due to medical issues. (Id., ¶ 20.) Defendant then served an amended notice setting the deposition for May 29, 2024. (Id., ¶ 22.) Plaintiff cancelled the May 29 deposition due to both her and her counsel’s medical issues. (Id., ¶ 23.) Defendant re-noticed the deposition for June 3, 2024, which Plaintiff cancelled again. (Id., ¶¶ 24-25.) After further correspondence between the parties, the deposition was most recently noticed for January 29, 2025. (Id., ¶ 48.) Plaintiff did not appear for her deposition on January 29, 2025. (Id., ¶ 55.) This motion followed.

            Despite Plaintiff’s and her counsel’s medical issues, Plaintiff chose to file this lawsuit and cannot avoid her discovery obligations indefinitely. “An action or proceeding does not abate by the disability of a party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 375.) Plaintiff’s deposition has been outstanding for over a year, and trial has been continued twice. Further delay would result in substantial prejudice to Defendant. The Court finds good cause to compel the deposition.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Wells Fargo’s motion to compel completion of Plaintiff’s deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall appear for deposition on or before ______________, 2025.