Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 20GDCV00568, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 20GDCV00568    Hearing Date: March 5, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

 

 

HEARING DATE:      March 5, 2024                                     TRIAL DATE: June 25, 2024

                                                          

CASE:                         NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA v. CITY OF PASADENA; ROSE BOWL OPERATING COMPANY; and DOES 1-100, inclusive.  

 

CASE NO.:                 20GDCV00568

 

           

 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

 

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PA

 

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendants City of Pasadena (the “City”) and Rose Bowl Operating Company (“RBOC”)

 

SERVICE:                              Filed November 28, 2023

 

OPPOSITION:                       Filed February 29, 2024

 

REPLY:                                   Filed February 27, 2024

 

RELIEF REQUESTED

 

             Plaintiff moves for an order compelling the deposition testimony of Defendants’ PMQ and for the production of documents.

 

BACKGROUND

 

             This case arises out of Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA’s (“Plaintiff”) subrogation claim for settlement payments in a prior lawsuit. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on January 22, 2021.

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

            Plaintiffs’ motions to compel the deposition testimony of Defendants’ PMQs and to compel the production of documents are DENIED.

 

            All requests for sanctions are denied.

 

LEGAL STANDARD

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a), provides: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

 

            Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 subdivision (b) requires that any motion under subdivision (a) set forth specific facts showing good cause and a meet and confer declaration or, when a deponent fails to attend the deposition, a declaration stating the moving party contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

 

“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).)

 

DISCUSSION

 

            The present motions involve discovery disputes between the parties arising from Plaintiff’s attempt to subpoena witnesses and documents. Plaintiff provides that on September 21, 2023, it separately served Defendants with notices of deposition for Defendants’ person most qualified (“PMQ”). Since then, the parties have engaged in various deposition hearings as follows: (1) On January 18, 2024, David Sams on behalf of RBOC (Farrow Decl. ¶ 4); (2) On January 19, 2024, George Rodgriguez on behalf of the City (Id. ¶ 5); and On February 2, 2024, Joaquin Siques on behalf of the City (Id. ¶ 7). Defendants also produced Darryl Dunn, a retired RBOC general manager. (Nebenzahl Decl. ¶ 2.1.) However, Plaintiff provides that at deposition, Dunn stated he was not the PMQ for the relevant category and Plaintiff’s counsel concluded the deposition. (Anderson Decl. ¶ 4.)

 

            Plaintiff contends that a variety of topics and documents are still outstanding. Plaintiff contends that it is still seeking a witness to testify as to RBOC’s PMQ categories numbers 8 and 9, and document requests numbers 8 and 9. Plaintiff also contends that it is still seeking a witness to testify as to the City’s PMQ categories numbers 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 and documents requests numbers 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. The court notes that although Plaintiff submitted a separate statement for each Defendant, several of the discovery topics are missing from the separate statements. For example, although Plaintiff seeks to compel deposition to categories 16 through 24 and requests for production 16 through 24, Plaintiff only includes request 16 and 24 in its separate statement but omits any requests in between.

 

            Plaintiff contends that on February 14, 2024, counsel for the respective parties communicated regarding the outstanding issues. (Farrow Decl.   8.) Plaintiff’s counsel asserts he offered to prepare a declaration covering the remaining topics but that Defendants’ counsel provided that the declaration were “not going to work”. (Id.   8, Exhibit H.)

 

The parties have engaged in efforts to resolve the pending discovery issue but seemed to have reached an impasse regarding the remaining categories and witnesses. Plaintiff argues Defendants have engaged in gamesmanship while Defendants contend they are not able to provide witnesses or documents at issue because they are unable to find appropriate witnesses or documents. The court notes that “[c]ivil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. ‘[I]t is a “central precept” of the Civil Discovery Act ... that discovery ‘be essentially self-executing[.]’ ” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.)

 

            In the present case, it seems that the parties are in the best position to resolve this dispute. At the current juncture the court is not privy to whether responsive witnesses or documents actually exist and are in Defendants’ possession. While discovery issues may still be unresolved, it does not appear to be the case that Defendants’ counsel are intentionally withholding information or failing to engage in a good faith effort to find responsive documents or witnesses. (Nebenzahl Decl. ¶ 2.) Furthermore, the parties attempt to draft a declaration resolving the outstanding issues appear to only be at the beginning stages. Discussion between the parties appears to be the most prudent way to resolve these issues.

 

            Plaintiffs’ motions to compel the deposition testimony of Defendants’ PMQs are denied.

 

CONCLUSION

 

            Plaintiffs’ motions to compel the deposition testimony of Defendants’ PMQs and to compel the production of documents are DENIED.

 

            All requests for sanctions are denied.

 

 

            Moving Party to provide notice.

 

           

Dated:   March 5, 2024                                               ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court



Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org