Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV48954, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48954    Hearing Date: October 31, 2022    Dept: 56

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

GENERAL STAR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

 

SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD, et al.,

                                                                             

                        Defendants.                              

      CASE NO.: 20STCV48954

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

 

Date: October 31, 2022

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

 

RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendant Sentinel Insurance Company, LTD (“Defendant”) and nonparties Julie S. Wood (“Wood”) and Entertainment Insurance Services, Inc. (“EIS”)

 

            The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers.  No reply papers were filed.  Any reply papers were required to have been filed and served at least five court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

 

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) equitable subrogation (failure to defend); (2) equitable subrogation (failure to accept a settlement within policy limits); and (3) equitable subrogation (failure to provide notice of claim).  On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel (the “Motion”) further deposition of nonparties Wood and EIS.

 

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Defendant’s objection to the Declaration of Paul A. Impellezzeri (“Impellezzeri Decl.”) number 2 is SUSTAINED.  Objections numbers 1, 3, and 4 are OVERRULED.

             

DISCUSSION

Under CCP section 2025.480, where a deponent fails to answer any questions or produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.  (CCP § 2025.480, subd. (a).)   The motion must be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (CCP § 2045.480, subd. (b).)  With respect to requests for documents, the 60-day period during which a motion to compel must be filed begins to run when the deponent serves objections on the party.  (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1032.)   With respect to oral testimony, not less than five days prior to the hearing on the motion, the moving party shall lodge with the court a certified copy of any parts of the stenographic transcript of the deposition that are relevant to the motion.  (CCP § 2025.480, subd. (h).)

 

Plaintiff served EIS with an amended subpoena on March 22, 2022.  (Impellezzeri Decl. ¶ 2.), EIS served its objections to the subpoena on April 20, 2022.  (Impellezzeri Decl. ¶ 3, Exhibit A.)  Wood testified on behalf of EIS during the April 26, 2022 deposition.  (Impellezzeri ¶ 4.)  On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a request for an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) with the Court.

 

At the outset, the Court notes that it is not entirely clear if Plaintiff is solely seeking further document production, or if it is also seeking to have Wood provide further testimony.  Regardless, the Motion is not timely.  While Plaintiff has not lodged a transcript of the relevant portions of Wood’s testimony with the Court, the Opposition provides evidence that the deposition officer provided notice of the transcript’s completion by electronic and mail service on May 4, 2022.  (See Declaration of Ted A. Smith (“Smith Decl.”) ¶ 10, Exhibit 7.) 

 

            IDCs are only available to resolve discovery disputes between parties to an action.  (See CCP § 2016.080.)   If a court is in session and does not grant, deny, or schedule the party’s request for an IDC within 10 calendar days after the initial request, the request shall be deemed denied.  (CCP § 2016.080, subd. (b).)  Because this discovery dispute involves a nonparty, Plaintiff was not entitled to an IDC, and the Court’s lack of response to its IDC request within 10 days of its filing constituted a denial of the request and there was therefore no tolling of the deadline for Plaintiff to file the Motion.  (See id.) 

 

The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

 

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

 

                          Dated this 31st day of October 2022

 

 

 

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court