Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV01016, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV01016    Hearing Date: April 5, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.   Allegations

Plaintiff Carmen Jimenez-Guzman (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she was lawfully on Defendant Smart & Final Stores, LLC’s (“Defendant”) property located at 6555 Foothill Blvd., Tujunga, CA 91042 on December 24, 2020, when she tripped and fell on a floor mat.  Plaintiff alleges that she sustained bodily injuries. 

The complaint, filed November 16, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) premises liability; (2) general negligence.  

B.    Motions on Calendar

On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed 3 motions to compel the depositions of Defendant’s employees: (1) Arturo Colon, Jr., (2) Joseph Perez, and (3) Pablo Arreaga.  Plaintiff seeks $900 in sanctions for each motion. 

On March 21, 2024, Defendant filed opposition briefs.

On March 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed reply briefs.    

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to compel the depositions of Defendant’s employees Arturo Colon, Jr., Joseph Perez, and Pablo Arreaga. 

            On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff sent Defendant correspondence with a notice of deposition to depose Joseph Perez, mentioning that if the date did not work, then to please advise about a mutually agreeable date.  On September 8, 2023, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s email by providing an objection to the deposition notice, without providing alternate dates.  Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant requesting alternate dates in October.  On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant asking for Perez’s remote deposition.  Upon not receiving a response, Plaintiff’s counsel sent defense counsel an amended notice to depose Perez on January 11, 2024.  On January 29, 2024, Defendant responded by providing an objection and stating that it would provide alternate dates.  Plaintiff states that Defendant has not provided alternate dates. 

            On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff sent correspondent to Defendant, requesting dates to depose Arturo Colon, Jr. and Pablo Arreaga.  Upon not receiving a response, Plaintiff’s counsel sent defense counsel deposition notices for Colon and Arreaga on January 11, 2024.  On January 29, 2024, Defendant responded by providing objections and stating that it would provide alternate dates.  Plaintiff states that Defendant has not provided alternate dates. 

            In opposition, Defendant argues that its counsel has diligently been working on ascertaining dates for the three deponents.  Defendant argues that Colon and Perez are no longer employees of Defendant and informed Plaintiff as such, but Plaintiff has kept the two motions regarding these individuals on calendar.  Defendant argues that it provided an April 11, 2024 date for Arreaga’s deposition, and that Arreaga’s deposition is currently scheduled for that date.  Thus, it argues that the motions are moot. 

            As the deposition of Arreaga is already scheduled for April 11, 2024, the motion directed against Arreaga is moot and will be denied.  Plaintiff argues that but for the filing of this motion, As stated above, Plaintiff contacted Defendant on January 5, 2024 to request deposition dates for Arreaga and upon not receiving a response, Plaintiff sent a deposition notice on January 11, 2024, which Defendant objected to on January 29, 2024.   The motion regarding Arreaga was then filed on February 14, 2024.  Since then, the parties have found a mutually agreeable deposition date in April, but in view of the impending trial, Defendants should have proceeded with greater alacrity in scheduling this deposition.  Thus, the Court will award modest sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $500 for the motion directed against Arreaga. 

            With respect to the depositions of Colon and Perez, they are no longer employees of Defendant.  It does not appear that Defendant and its counsel intend to represent any of the former employees in the event their depositions go forward.  As these are non-party witnesses, Plaintiff should employ the necessary measures to depose these individuals.  The motions to compel the depositions of Colon and Perez are denied.  In the reply brief, Plaintiff argues that sanctions are still warranted because Defendant would not have ascertained that Colon and Perez were no longer employees unless the motions were filed and that Defendant has delayed in providing their last known contact information so that Plaintiff could subpoena them.  Prior to Plaintiff filing these motions, Defendant represented it would provide alternate dates for depositions, but did not disclose that these individuals were no longer employees of Defendant. In their previous interrogatory answers, they indicated that they would in fact produce these witnesses.  Under these circumstances, the Court will award a reasonable amount of sanctions against Defendant for these motions in the amount of $500 for each motion. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Carmen Jimenez-Guzman’s motions to compel the deposition of Defendant Smart & Final Stores, LLC’s employees Arturo Colon, Jr., Joseph Perez, and Pablo Arreaga are denied.  Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,500 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.