Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21STCV14537, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14537    Hearing Date: January 11, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     January 11, 2024                                 TRIAL DATE: August 20, 2024

CASE:                         JANE DOE, an individual, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public entity; JEREMY HULES, an individual; and DOES 1 through 60, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV14537

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed November 6, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Delilah Salas to appear for deposition.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Jane Doe’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that she was the victim of childhood sexual assault during the 2011/2012 school year when she was a student at Mount Gleason Middle School in Los Angeles California. Plaintiff filed this complaint on April 16, 2021.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling Salas to comply with the deposition subpoena is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

            On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff served a deposition subpoena for Salas with the deposition date scheduled for September 7, 2023. (Suh Decl. ¶ 2, Exhibit 1.) Salas appeared remotely for deposition at 10:06 a.m. on September 7, 2023. (Id. ¶ 3.) At around 11:04 a.m., Salas exited the remote deposition. (Ibid, Exhibit 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Salas to resume the deposition, but Salas refused to resume the deposition. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff has demonstrated that she served a deposition subpoena on Salas, but that Salas refused to continue with the deposition.

            Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling Salas to comply with the deposition subpoena served on August 25, 2023, is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to confer with Salas regarding a potential date to resume deposition.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling Salas to comply with the deposition subpoena is GRANTED.

Dated:   January 11, 2024                                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court