Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 20STCV24383, Date: 2023-04-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV24383 Hearing Date: April 10, 2023 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
April 10, 2023
20STCV24383
Motions to Compel Deposition of Percipient Witness Ryan Block filed by Defendants MGM Truck Lines and Orlando Euceda Jimenez
DECISION
The OSC is discharged.
The motion is granted.
Ryan Block is ordered to appear for deposition within 15 days after the date of this order.
Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.
Background
This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in July 2018. Plaintiff Daniela Guardia Villegas filed her Complaint against MGM Truck Lines and Orlando Euceda Jimenez on June 29, 2020.
Defendants filed their motion to compel Ryan Block to appear for deposition on March 15, 2023.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s counsel, Ryan Block, is a percipient witness in this matter because he is Plaintiff’s boyfriend and has personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff has also asserted a claim for loss of consortium.
Opposing Arguments
None filed.
Legal Standard
Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition for production of business records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.) A deposition subpoena may command: (1) only the attendance and testimony of the deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.) Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require a deponent who is a resident of California to: personally appear and testify, if the subpoena so specifies; to produce any specified documents; and to appear at a court session if the subpoena so specifies. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (c).) A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena may be punished for contempt without the necessity of a prior order of the court directing compliance by the witness. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240.)
“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court …, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action …, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)
Discussion
Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s counsel, Ryan Block, to appear for deposition on the grounds that he is percipient witness with personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s injuries.
Notice of Motion
“A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346.)
Here, Defendants’ proof of service shows that this motion was electronically served on Block at eservice@blockllp.com, among other addresses. Block’s notice of change of electronic address and physical address states that any and all documents served electronically to Block LLP in this matter shall be emailed to eservice@blockllp.com. The evidence shows that Block consented to electronic service.
Compel Compliance
Defendants’ counsel testifies that Block objected to his deposition, arguing that Defendants should obtain a Court order compelling his appearance. (Flynn Decl., ¶13.) Plaintiff is claiming damages for injuries to her head, neck, back, and other body parts. (Id., ¶6.) Plaintiff alleges that injuries to her jaw have disfigured her face. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that she is now limited in certain daily activities, including kissing and related activity. (Id.) Plaintiff is also asserting a claim for loss of consortium. (Id.) Defendants dispute Plaintiff’s liability and damage claims, including her claims that she is limited in her daily life and personal relationships. (Id., ¶7.) At Plaintiff’s deposition, she identified her counsel, Ryan Block, as her boyfriend and appeared for remote deposition at his personal residence. (Id., ¶9.) Plaintiff and Block have been dating for the better part of two years. (Id.) They travel, vacation, and recreate together. (Id.) Defendants are willing to stipulate that they will not attempt to invade any attorney-client privileged communications or regarding any attorney work product. (Id., ¶15.)
Because Block is Plaintiff’s boyfriend, he has personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s limitations which she alleges were caused by the subject vehicle collision. Information about the impact of Plaintiff’s injuries on her relationship with Block is discoverable. Defendants’ counsel represents that he will not attempt to obtain attorney-client privileged communications or attorney work product. Defendants’ motion to compel Block to appear for deposition is granted.
