Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 21STCV41026, Date: 2025-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41026    Hearing Date: May 5, 2025    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 05-05-25

Case # 21STCV41026, Gallegos, et al. v. Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC, et al.

Trial Date: 09-02-25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Alex Gallegos, Kimberly Gallegos, and Angel Sanchez

RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC and Logan Jose Lizares

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling further responses to deposition questions and responsive documents.

RULING: Motion is denied.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

This case arises from a single motor vehicle collision that occurred on November 19, 2019.  Decedent Sebastien Gallegos and plaintiff Angel Sanchez were passengers in a vehicle that collided with the rear of a 2012 Autocar Dump Truck driven by defendant Logan Jose Lizares (Lizares), who was driving within the course and scope of his employment with defendant Consolidated Disposal Services, LLC (Consolidated), a motor carrier.

Plaintiffs Alex Gallegos and Kimberly Gallegos, decedent Sebastien Gallegos’s successors in interest, and plaintiff Alex Sanchez (Plaintiffs) each filed separate complaints against defendants Consolidated; Republic Services, Inc.; Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. dba Sunshine Canyon Landfill; Logan Jose Lizares; Autocar, LLC; Estate of Eugen Oh; Steve Oh; and Hyun Oh.  The cases were consolidated on May 3, 2024.  Plaintiffs allege several causes of action against defendants: (1) negligence; (2) negligent hiring, training, supervision, and entrustment; (3) strict product liability; (4) negligence - product liability; (5) breach of warranties; and (6) motor vehicle.

At Lizares’ March 19, 2025 deposition, Lizares testified that he was terminated for “deviating from his assigned route” to deliver a “box” for personal purposes.  (Declaration of Katherine Harvey-Lee, Exh. 3 - Logan Lizares Deposition, at pp. 2-4, 8-10.)  Lizares testified that the deviation was discovered by supervisors who had reviewed his GPS location data, and that the review of the GPS data showed his route deviation and led to his termination. (Ibid.)  When asked about his lane choice at the time of the incident, Lizares gave lengthy testimony about his pre-collision route involving a series of actions and reasons for taking the route during the hours before the collision, including the delivery of a crowbar to Consolidated’s lot at the request of his supervisor, PMK Eligio.  (Harvey-Lee, Exh. 3, pp. 007-10.)

On March 21, 2025, Plaintiffs served a notice of deposition with requests for production on Consolidated for its Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK).  (Harvey-Lee Dec., Exh. 4.)  The notice requested documents relating to Lizares’ hiring and employment history with Consolidated and the identity of all persons at Consolidated responsible for hiring, supervising, and terminating Lizares.  Plaintiffs also requested copies of all documents relating to any disciplinary actions taken against Lizares during his employment with Consolidated, including any disciplinary actions or warnings related to deviating from company driving routes and documents related to termination for such actions.  (Ibid.)

At the March 25, 2025 PMK deposition of Jose Eligio, Consolidated objected and instructed Eligio not to answer a question concerning the termination of defendant Lizares, citing the court’s prior ruling denying a motion to compel responses to an interrogatory asking for the basis of defendant Lizares’ termination.  (Harvey-Lee Dec., Exh. 2 - Jose Eligio Deposition, at pp. 8-9.)  The court denied the motion  based on Consolidated’s privacy objections and its representation that the reasons it terminated Lizares were unrelated to Lizares’ driving record or his operating Consolidated’s commercial vehicle.  (Harvey-Lee Dec., Exh. 2 - Jose Eligio Deposition, at pp. 8-9.)  Eligio also testified that he could not recall asking nor think of any reason why anyone would ask Lizares to deliver a crowbar to Consolidated’s lot, and that deviating from a route during the course and scope of driving, even for personal gain or a personal errand, was not a “fire-able” offense.  (Harvey-Lee Dec., Exh. 2, at pp. 14, 18-19.)  Finally, Eligio testified that Consolidated’s supervisors could monitor the GPS location of drivers while they operated commercial vehicles for Consolidated, and this was done when the need to do so was triggered.  (See Harvey-Lee Dec., Exh. 2, at pp. 4-7, 15.)

Plaintiffs move to compel responses to their deposition questions and requests for production.  Consolidated and Lizares filed an opposition on April 21, 2025.  Plaintiffs filed a late reply on May 1, 2025.[1]

MEET AND CONFER

Motions to compel further deposition responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve issues outside court.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2025.480, subd. (a).)  Plaintiffs claim that counsel met and conferred both off and on the record at the time of the Eligio deposition but were unable to resolve the dispute.  (Harvey-Lee Dec., ¶ 7.)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Plaintiffs contend that there is conflicting testimony between Lizares and PMK Eligio concerning Lizares’ route and the actions in the hours and minutes leading up to the collision.  (Harvey-Lee Dec., Exh. 2, at pp. 12-13.)  Plaintiffs also assert that despite longstanding requests for production, including requests to produce at the deposition, Consolidated has failed to produce the daily paperwork Lizares was required to complete giving his route, times, and the condition of the vehicle for the date of the collision.  Eligio testified that these documents would have been retained by Consolidated but did not explain why the documents could not be produced given the nature of the collision and that “legal” took over investigation immediately after the crash.  (Harvey-Lee Dec., Exh. 2, at pp. 2-3, 10-11, 16-17.)  Consolidated has also failed to produce the GPS data concerning Lizares’ operations for Consolidated on the date of the incident.

Consolidated and Lizares oppose, contending that Plaintiffs’ attempt to connect Eligo’s testimony about Lizares “deviating from an assigned route” to this case makes no sense because it has no bearing on the accident.  The information concerning Lizares’ termination is irrelevant and Plaintiffs cannot show any reason why details of the termination are relevant to the subject matter of this case.  The court already agreed to this in its August 22, 2024 ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories.  Further, Lizares testified that he was terminated because of a misunderstanding with a supervisor related to Lizares delivering a container to a friend.  Lizares even testified that part of Consolidated’s reasoning was that he deviated from his assigned route to deliver the container for personal reasons.  Lizares also confirmed he had never been written up nor disciplined by Consolidated for such an infraction before.  (Declaration of Ron Specter, ¶ 8, Exh. B.)  Because Consolidated is a motor carrier that is subject to FMCSRs, it violated federal regulations when Lizares hauled hazardous waste on unapproved routes and a violation to drive a CMV for personal conveyance or purpose while still “on-duty” for a motor carrier.  (Citing 49 C.F.R. § 397.67.).  Consolidated admits it did not produce documents about Lizares’ route leading up to the collision because the request was not included in the original deposition notice.  Once Consolidated saw the request in the amended deposition notice, it produced the only responsive document within its control: the Vehicle Condition Report from the date of the accident.  (Specter Dec., ¶ 11, Exh. D.)  There are no post-accident discipline records.  (Specter Dec., ¶ 12.)  Finally, defense counsel notes that he stated Defendants’ position during a telephonic meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel.  Plaintiffs ignored Defendants’ objections and chose to wait until six months before trial to depose Lizares and Consolidated’s PMK even though Plaintiffs filed their complaints in November 2021.

ANALYSIS

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).)  “If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (i).)

The court has reviewed the moving papers and finds that Plaintiffs mischaracterize Consolidated’s PMK deposition testimony to create a contradiction in order to expand the scope of relevant discovery.  Plaintiff correctly asserts that PMK Eligio testified that deviating from an assigned driving route for personal reasons is not a fire able offense.  However, this is not relevant to determining the cause of the November 19, 2019 accident.

Lizares testified that he was terminated for deviating from his driving route to deliver a package to a friend and for a misunderstanding with a supervisor and a district manager over the delivery.  Lizares states that he delivered the box on a Sunday in May 2020, when Consolidated’s office was closed.  The next day, Lizares told his supervisor about the delivery.  When the district manager learned about the delivery, he did not agree with Lizares’ actions and terminated Lizares’ employment with Consolidated.  Thus, Lizares was terminated for using the Consolidated truck to deliver a package to a friend on a day the Consolidated office was closed.

The court is unclear about why Lizares’ location in May 2020 is relevant to the accident, Lizares’ location on the day of the accident, or the cause of the accident.  Plaintiffs allege that Lizares was slowly driving Consolidated’s truck and that decedent Oh rearended the truck because he was unable to stop.  (Compl., ¶ 25.)  Because Lizares was driving slowly on a public road and it was decent who rearended Lizares, the court finds no connection between Lizares deviating from his driving route in May 2020 and the accident on November 2019.

The court is unclear about how Lizares’ driving route in May 2020 is relevant to an accident that occurred over five months before.  Lizares’ testimony about delivering a package to his friend on a Sunday in May 2020 has no bearing on Lizares’ actions in November 2019.

The court is also unclear about why Lizares’ driving route on the day of the accident is relevant to determining the cause of the accident.  Plaintiffs cite 49 C.F.R. § 397.67(a) as a basis for negligence per se in their first amended complaint.  Plaintiffs are attempting to argue that because Lizares deviated from his driving route when he was terminated in May 2020, the GPS data about Lizares’ driving route on the day of the accident is relevant to showing whether Lizares violated federal and state regulations for motor carriers and proximately caused the collision.  However, the deposition testimony does not indicate that Lizares deviated from his driving route prior to the accident.  And Plaintiffs do not explain how Lizares’ actions in May 2020 are relevant to determining the cause of the November 2019 accident.  Further, Consolidated has already produced Lizares’ driving route for the date of accident.  (Specter Dec., ¶ 10, Exh. C.)

Because Plaintiffs do not demonstrate how Lizares’ driving route on the day of the collision or in May 2020 are relevant to determining the cause of the accident, the court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further deposition responses to their deposition questions and for further responsive documents is denied.

Plaintiffs to give notice.