Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV02312, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02312    Hearing Date: July 9, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      July 9, 2024                                        TRIAL DATE: not set

CASE:                         Jennifer Merrick, et al. v. Kamal Preet Singh, et al.

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV02312

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Jennifer Merrick

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant Sidhu Truck Line, Inc.

SERVICE:                              Filed April 10, 2024

OPPOSITION:                       Filed June 25, 2024

REPLY:                                   none

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to produce its person most qualified for deposition.

BACKGROUND

             This is a personal injury case arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs filed this complaint on October 5, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified is DENIED.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is 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.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling the deposition testimony of Defendant’s person most qualified. Plaintiff provides that on March 4, 2024, Plaintiffs served Defendant with a notice of deposition for its person most qualified. (Mesaros Decl. ¶ 2.) The deposition was noticed for April 5, 2024. (Ibid.) The notice indicated only one topic of deposition: insurance. (Adzhemyan Decl., Exh. A.) Specifically, Plaintiff requests that Defendant produce a deponent to testify about any liability policies pertaining to accidents. (Ibid.) On April 1, 2024, Defendant objected to Plaintiffs’ notice of deposition. (Adzhemyan Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. C.) The objections to the deposition notice specifically stated that Defendant would not appear because: 1) the deposition was unilaterally set; 2) it was burdensome and oppressive; 3) it impermissibly called for expert opinion; 4) it failed to comply the “reasonable particularity” requirement set forth in Civil Procedure Section 2025.230, causing Defendant to resort to speculation; and 5) it was vague, ambiguous and overbroad. (Id., Exh. C.) On April 5, 2024, Plaintiffs proceeded with the deposition anyways. Defendant’s representatives did not appear. (Mesaros Decl. ¶ 5.)

            Defendant opposes the motion based on insufficient meet and confer, and because Defendant has already produced the information that Plaintiff seeks. Defendant’s counsel attempted to reach Plaintiff’s counsel on five different occasions but did not receive a response. (Adzhemyan Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.) Defendant has already provided its insurance information to Plaintiff in response to discovery requests (Adzhemyan Decl., ¶¶ 11-14, Exhs. F-I.)

            Plaintiff failed to meet and confer and set forth specific facts showing good cause.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified is DENIED.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   July 9, 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