Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV10542, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10542    Hearing Date: April 17, 2023    Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

April 14, 2023

21STCV10542

Motions to Compel Deposition of Defendant Postmates, LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable Regarding Insurance Coverage and Production of Documents filed by Plaintiff

DECISION

The motion is granted in part and denied in part as set forth below.

The deposition is ordered to occur within the next 20 days, or a date agreed upon in writing by the parties.

Moving party to provide notice.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for orders compelling Postmates’ PMK to appear for deposition.

Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that on July 14, 2022, Plaintiff served a deposition notice on Postmates, setting a deposition for its PMK for August 18, 2022. (Marks Decl., ¶4.)

The deposition notice requested production of “each WRITING that RELATES TO each insurance policy in force and effect, including, but not limited to, primary, concurrent, excess, or umbrella liability insurance policies, including declaration pages and all endorsements or riders, in effect at the time of the INCIDENT, which cover or may cover YOU for damages or claims arising out of the incident.” (Motion, Exh. 1.)

On August 11, 2022, Postmates served its objections to the deposition notice. Postmates objected to the notice on the grounds that (1) the deposition date was unilaterally noticed and Postmates’ counsel was unavailable on the noticed date, (2) the notice was overbroad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, harassing, and invasive of the rights of a third party, (3) the notice requires Postmates to sort out the factual material in the case according to specific legal contentions, (4) the discovery sought is obtainable from another source that is less burdensome, and (5) the deposition is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Motion, Exh. 3.) Postmates argued in its response that the request for production would include disclosure of confidential personal or financial information.

Postmates’ objections are overruled. There is no law stating depositions may not be unilaterally noticed. Plaintiff’s deposition notice properly limits production to primary, concurrent, excess, or umbrella liability insurance policies, including declaration pages and all endorsements or riders which cover or may cover Plaintiff.  Because the deposition properly limited the documents to be produced to the insurance policies that would cover Plaintiff, the deposition notice was not overbroad. Additionally, Plaintiff is permitted to seek discovery about Postmates’ insurance coverage through more than one method of discovery. Postmates’ objections were thus invalid.

Because Postmates failed to raise a valid objection, at least in part, to Plaintiff’s deposition notice, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Postmates to produce its PMK for deposition is granted.

Plaintiff, on reply, also seeks orders compelling Postmates to produce complete, unredacted copies of its insurance policies. Postmates’ counsel testifies that he already produced the insurance policies that would potentially provide coverage, including declaration pages, on March 31, 2023. (Mazzara Decl., ¶11.) Moreover, Plaintiff was not an authorized Postmates user at the time of the incident, meaning there is likely no applicable insurance coverage related to the incident. (Id., ¶13.) Postmates only discovered Defendant Hernandez had a Postmates account on March 4, 2023. (Id., ¶14.) Plaintiff had been subcontracting from Hernandez’s authorized Postmates account. (Id., ¶8.) After discovering Hernandez’s account, Postmates produced the redacted insurance policies that would potentially apply to Hernandez. (Opp., p.8.)

The Court finds that Postmates properly redacted information that was confidential, privileged, or not relevant to the insurance coverage which might cover Plaintiff. Plaintiff is not entitled to complete copies of the insurance policies which may contain information unrelated to Plaintiff’s need to obtain insurance information. Plaintiff’s request to compel Plaintiff to produce complete copies of the insurance policies is denied.

It is settled law that sanctions are mandatory in favor of the party that attended at the time and place specified in the deposition notice in the expectation that the deponent's testimony would be taken 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.) Here, because Plaintiff was aware that Postmates counsel could not attend the deposition as scheduled, and since there was a dispute regarding redaction of insurance policies and the Court ruled in Postmates' favor with regard to that dispute, the Court declines to impose sanctions.