Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Allen v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation service mark Amtrak (“Amtrak”) moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff Andrea Allen to Special Interrogatories (Set Two). For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED as moot.

On 08/24/2022, Plaintiff served verified supplemental responses to each response at issue. (Momita Decl., Ex. 1.)

 “If a motion under [Section 2025.450] subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(g)(1).) A request for a sanction must, “in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)

Defendant requests $1,685.00 in sanctions to reimburse it for costs and fees. At the time of the motion, Plaintiff was represented by counsel. The notice of motion, however, does not identify whether sanctions are sought against Plaintiff, her counsel, or both.  Thus, the request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Moving Party to give notice.

Motion to Compel Deposition

Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation service mark Amtrak (“Amtrak”) moves to compel Plaintiff Andrea Allen attend deposition and produce documents requested in the deposition notice. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.450(a) provides that if a party witness fails to appear or produce documents, without having served a valid objection, the noticing party 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. A motion to compel production of documents described in a deposition notice must also be accompanied by a showing of good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(b)(1).) Arguments made in the moving papers or in a separate statement are insufficient to satisfy this requirement; good cause must be shown by way of admissible evidence, such as by declaration. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

Here, Defendant Amtrak shows Plaintiff failed to appear for her duly noticed deposition. (Krutcik Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Defendant, however, fails to show good cause justifying the production of requested documents. Counsel’s declaration addresses good cause justifying Plaintiff’s testimony, but does not address the document requests. (See Krutcik Decl. ¶ 4.)

Defendant Amtrak’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff Andrea Allen is ordered to appear for deposition at a mutually agreeable time no later than January 13, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. Defendant shall serve an amended notice of deposition no later than 15 days prior to the re-noticed deposition.

Moving Party to give notice.