Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV11529, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11529    Hearing Date: December 13, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On May 22, 2023, Plaintiff Maria del Socorro Ramirez filed this action against Defendants Elizabeth Cristina Ramirez Camacho (Mrs. Camacho) and Davian Camacho (Mr. Camacho). Plaintiff is the mother of Mrs. Camacho and mother-in-law of Mr. Camacho. The action concerns real property located in Los Angeles.

            Plaintiff alleges that she is the owner of the home. Plaintiff is an 84-year-old widower with multiple health issues and only speaks Spanish. In early 2022, Defendants allegedly proposed that in exchange for Plaintiff selling the property to Defendants, Defendants would assist in renovating the property and care for Plaintiff for the remainder of her life. Defendants’ alleged true motive was to flip the house for profit and place Plaintiff in an elderly home. Defendants allegedly induced Plaintiff into an agreement to sell the property but did not pay Plaintiff the amounts owed to her. After Defendants acquired title and renovated the property, they worked to remove Plaintiff from the property and then put it up for sale. Plaintiff does not currently live at the property. Plaintiff filed this action to quiet title to the property and recover damages from Defendants’ alleged wrongdoing.

            On November 15, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion for protective order to allow Defendants to personally attend Plaintiff’s deposition and exclude nonparty Raul Ramirez, Plaintiff’s son, from attending. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on November 30, 2023. Defendants filed their reply on December 6, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420(a).) “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Id., subd. (b).) “The issuance and formulation of protective orders are to a large extent discretionary.” (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 316.) “[T]he burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought.” (Id. at p. 318.)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

            Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s declaration are overruled. Defendants’ objections to the declarations of Maria L. Ramirez, Raul Ramirez, and Victor Ramirez are sustained.

DISCUSSION

I. Defendants’ Attendance

            Defendants have a statutory right to attend Plaintiff’s deposition because a court may only order that “designated persons, other than the parties to the action and their officers and counsel, be excluded from attending the deposition.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420(b)(12), emphasis added.) This means parties cannot be excluded from a deposition. “If the Legislature intended to provide for the possibility that parties could be excluded from depositions they could have said so. Instead they chose language expressly precluding the exclusion of parties from depositions in their own case.” (Willoughby v. Superior Court (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 890, 892.) “To prevent a client's presence during the cross-examination of the opposing party at deposition would significantly and unreasonably impair trial counsel's ability to effectively represent his client. In many cases it is critical for counsel to be able to confer with his client at his side concerning responses being received during the course of a deposition.” (Ibid.)

            Plaintiff claims that she is “scared and terrified” of Defendants and “fear[s] for [her] safety when they are around.” (Plaintiff Decl. ¶ 2.) In particular, Plaintiff avers that Mr. Camacho “has yelled at [her] before and is extremely aggressive.” (Id., ¶ 3.) Mrs. Camacho has also supposedly “threated [Plaintiff] on multiple occasions” and “has told [Plaintiff] that Davian is capable of killing someone for his family.” (Id., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff believes that she “will not be able to answer questions to the best of [her] ability if [she were] in the same room as [Defendants].” (Id., ¶ 10.)   

            However, Plaintiff does not aver to any actual violence committed against herself. There is no indication that Plaintiff has filed a restraining order against either Defendant. Plaintiff’s complaint contains no allegations of physical abuse. When the parties met and conferred about the deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel never mentioned that Plaintiff feared for her safety due to violence or threats of violence. (See Zamora Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) The case in Willoughby also involved allegations of abuse and intimidation, and the plaintiff there also claimed that she could not properly testify in the presence of the defendants. (Willoughby, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 891.) The court nonetheless held that the defendants had the right to attend the deposition in person for the reasons articulated above. Plaintiff chose to file the lawsuit and cannot now restrict Defendants’ ability to conduct discovery.     

II. Raul Ramirez’s Attendance

            Defendants seek to exclude Plaintiff’s son, Raul Ramirez, from attending the deposition based on Mrs. Camacho’s belief that “Raul Ramirez does not want [her] present during Socorro’s deposition because [her] presence will cause Socorro to tell the truth and concede that the allegations contained in the complaint are complete fabrications.” (E. Camacho Decl. ¶ 24.) Mrs. Camacho further believes that “Socorro is fearful of Raul Ramirez and that if she testifies truthfully, Raul will remove Socorro from his home and send her to a facility to live.” (Id., ¶ 25.) This speculation is insufficient to justify excluding Raul Ramirez from the deposition. Raul Ramirez has been Plaintiff’s caretaker for 7 to 8 months. (Raul Ramirez Decl. ¶ 22.)

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion for protective order is GRANTED in part. Defendants and Raul Ramirez may attend the deposition in person. All individuals involved are ordered to maintain civility at all times throughout the deposition and to refrain from any disruptive conduct. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.