Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 19STCV43802, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV43802    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: E

Hearing Date:  01/09/2023 – 1:30pm

Case No:            19STCV43802                                                                               

Trial Date: 10/23/2023

Case Name: ORLANDO PRICE v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; DOES 1-20

TENTATIVE RULING - MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Orlando Price

Responding Party: Defendant, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a Public Entity

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300):Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address: Ok

Opposition and Reply Submitted.

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff moves for an order compelling the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified (PMQ) and document production at deposition as specified in Plaintiff’s deposition notice.

Plaintiff makes the instant motion on the following grounds: CCP §2025.010, 2025.230, and good cause.

BACKGROUND
This action stems from Plaintiff’s allegations that he was injured on Defendant’s property when he was forced to take the stairs because Defendant’s elevators were non-operational.

LEGAL STANDARD – MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

C.C.P. §2025.450(a) provides, as follows:  “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, 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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

C.C.P. §2025.450(b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following: 

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. 

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

TENTATIVE RULING
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff does not cite a single section of the Code of Civil Procedure that procedurally allows Plaintiff to compel a deposition. For example, 2025.450(a)-(b) as cited by the Court is one example that describes the procedural requirements to compel a deposition. Plaintiff simply cites general rules about discovery, PMQ’s, and depositions in the Code of Civil Procedure.

Further, Plaintiff’s motion and declaration is entirely unclear as to what deposition notice it is basing its motion on. Both the motion and declaration refer to several different dates, notices, objections, etc., but doesn’t specify which specific deposition notice Plaintiff is basing this motion on. For example, the last deposition notice Plaintiff refers to is the one that was supposed to occur on June 27, 2022 (Decl. Madison ¶13.) However, in all of the exhibits Plaintiff attached to his motion, the deposition notices with requests for production refer to dates that aren’t for June 27, 2022. Further, Plaintiff attached a separate statement with Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s subject areas of the deposition and requests for production but it’s entirely unclear which deposition notice these objections are in response to.

Therefore, overall, Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective.

Defendant, in Opposition, makes several arguments that are equally as inappropriate as Plaintiff’s procedurally defective motion.  For example, Defendant attempts to argue that this motion is untimely without citing any law or basis for this argument, and Defendant attempts to argue the merits of the entire case in this simple discovery motion.

However, Defendant’s argument that this motion is not clear as to which deposition notice or category of PMK deposition Plaintiff seeks to compel is persuasive to this Court. Additionally, in Reply, Plaintiff does nothing to clear this issue up. Plaintiff simply continues to talk about general rules of discovery and other topics that are not on point for a motion to compel a deposition.

Although Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally improper and cites no statute that allows for compelling a deposition, Plaintiff does in fact cite CCP §2025.230. CCP §2025.230 states, “If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.” Here, it appears that Defendant is not complying with the code in designating a PMQ(s). Defendant is ordered to designate and produce a PMQ(s) according to the code.

Plaintiff must also be more specific with respect to the elevator-related categories of his PMQ deposition Notice, as well as the associated Request for Production. There are 10 Subject Areas relating to the elevators on Defendant’s premises in the various PMQ deposition notices, and there are 11 requests for production pertaining to the elevator. Whether each of these requests or designations are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is unclear.

Opposition argues on page 4 of the Oppo that it identified and produced PMQ Terrence McWhorter but Moving party claims that McWhorter knew nothing about LACMTA’s policies and procedures. Plaintiff has thus far failed to properly move to compel further or proceed otherwise procedurally, although moving party states he did notice the depositions of Terrence McWhorter and Robert Rodriquez.

Plaintiff’s Motion is thus DENIED without prejudice.

Sanctions

In light of the deficiencies of both the Moving and Opposing papers, the Court declines to award sanctions to either party.