Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV02610, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02610    Hearing Date: May 30, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Eliseo Antonio Aleman (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on May 7, 2023, he suffered personal injuries when walking on a sidewalk owned by Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) located on Dronfield Ave., near the intersection of Dronfield Ave. and Osborne St.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant allowed a rectangular metal base of a street sign, which was affixed to the concrete sidewalk, to protrude from the sidewalk, such that Plaintiff stepped on the base and lost balance.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently owned, maintained, managed, and operated the subject area. 

The complaint, filed November 6, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) general negligence; and (2) premises liability.    

B.     Cross-Complaint

On February 26, 2024, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against ROES 1-20 for: (1) indemnification; (2) apportionment of fault; and (3) declaratory relief.

C.     Motion on Calendar

On April 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified.   

            The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

            The Court notes that it granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order shortening time for hearing on this motion on May 8, 2025.  The Court’s minute order reflects that Defendant’s counsel represented she has already agreed to produce the PMQ for deposition.  

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ. 

            Plaintiff argues that he served multiple iterations of the deposition notice on August 15, 2024, August 19, 2024, January 22, 2025, March 4, 2025, and April 2, 2025.  (Mot. at pp.4-5.)  Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not produced a PMQ, he has been unable to take a PMQ deposition, and Defendant has only provided written objections to the Second Amended Notice on February 20, 2025 but not the other notices. 

Plaintiff is entitled to take the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ and, based on defense counsel’s representations at the hearing on the ex parte application, a PMQ will be produced.

In the abundance of caution and in light of the impending jury trial date of September 15, 2025, the Court grants the motion to compel Defendant’s PMQ’s deposition.  The Court will order the parties to meet and confer to find a mutually agreeable deposition date.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified is granted.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer to find a mutually agreeable deposition date within 30 days of this hearing.  If the parties’ attempts to meet and confer fail, Plaintiff may unilaterally schedule Defendant’s PMQ’s deposition within 60 days of this order and provide proper notice of the newly scheduled deposition.   

Plaintiff shall give notice of this order.

DATED: May 30, 2025                                                          ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court