Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV00648, Date: 2024-07-19 Tentative Ruling

This case arises from an incident that occurred on March 23, 2023, when Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell due to an uneven/raised portion of a sidewalk owned and maintained by Defendant. On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant asserting the following causes of action: (1) general negligence; and (2) premises liability.

On May 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant with a Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). On July 3, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition; Plaintiff filed a reply on July 11, 2024.

Any party may obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) Service of a proper deposition notice is “effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party fails to appear for examination or fails to produce for inspection any document described in the deposition notice, without having served a valid objection under section 2025.410, the party noticing the deposition may move for an order compelling attendance or production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) Such a motion “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b).)

C.C.P. 2025.450(g)(1) states that: “If a motion [to compel deposition] 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.”

Plaintiff states that it served Defendants with two deposition notices on two occasions: (1) on March 26, 2024, Plaintiff served his Notice of Taking Deposition of Employee(s) and/or Person(s) Most Qualified for Defendant, noticing the deposition for April 22, 2024 (Declaration of Nima Sadeghian (“Sadeghian Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exh. 1); and (2) on May 1, 2024, Plaintiff served his Notice of First Continuance of Taking Deposition of Employee(s) and/or Person(s) Most Qualified for Defendant, noticing the deposition to take place on May 22, 2024 (Sadeghian Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 2.)

Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to serve valid objections and refused to appear for deposition despite the properly served deposition notices. Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant refuses to provide Plaintiff’s counsel with alternative and reasonable available dates for Defendant’s deposition, and claims that the delay in the discovery process will affect his ability to prepare for the upcoming trial.

Defendant points out that no trial date was set when the Motion was filed. Additionally, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff unilaterally chose deposition dates without considering the availability of the Person Most Qualified (“PMQ”) for Defendant, despite Defendant’s having provided those dates to Plaintiff. Defendant argues that it responded with an objection to Plaintiff’s notices of deposition, and provided alternative dates when its PMQ, Glenn LaCoure, would be available. (Declaration of Carolyn Phillips, ¶¶ 2-5.) Defendant’s PMQ states that he is unavailable for the dates noticed in Plaintiff’s deposition notices, and that his current earliest availability for a deposition is on September 24, 2024. (Declaration of Glenn LaCoure, ¶¶ 3-5.)

In reply, Plaintiff argues that providing a deposition date more than four months in the future is unreasonable.

The Local Rules provide that reasonable consideration is to be given to accommodating schedules. (Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rules, Appendix 3.A, Guidelines for Civility in Litigation, subsection (e)(2) [“In scheduling depositions, reasonable consideration should be given to accommodating schedules or opposing counsel and of the deponent, where it is possible to do so without prejudicing the client’s rights.”].)

The Court notes that the trial date in this case is currently set for August 18, 2025. As such, the Court considers the deposition date of September 24, 2024, agreed upon by Defendant, to be reasonable. The Court also finds that there is no prejudice to Plaintiff, as the trial date is more than a year away from the date of this Order.

Both parties are requesting monetary sanctions against each other. The Court does not find that monetary sanctions are warranted in this case. Therefore, no monetary sanctions are imposed.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court