Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV02856, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02856    Hearing Date: January 21, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

RICK GEISSLER, Plaintiff, v. LAURIE JIMENEZ, Defendant. Case No: 23STCV02856 Hearing Date: January 21, 2025 Calendar Number: 5

Plaintiff Rick Geissler (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Laurie Jimenez (“Defendant”).

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel, but orders that the deposition of Nichole Geissler (“Nichole”) should be completed first. The parties are encouraged to work out the dates before the hearing. If the parties are not able to do so, at the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide availability dates for Nichole and Defendant’s counsel shall provide availability dates for Defendant. If the parties cannot decide from among those dates, the Court will select the deposition dates.

The Court does not award sanctions.

Background

This is a libel case.

Plaintiff alleges that, on June 15, 2023, Defendant sent a text message to David Kueffer stating that “[y]ou wanted to know why the geissler [sic] kids turned out to have such problems just like everybody else that has trauma in their life. They were molested by Rick geissler [sic].” (Complaint ¶ 6.) Plaintiff alleges that this statement is false. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s statement has damaged his family relationships.

Plaintiff filed this action on February 9, 2023, raising one claim for libel per se.

Trial is set for April 1, 2025.

On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel noticed Defendant’s deposition to occur on October 15, 2024. There was no written objection to the deposition.

Defendant failed to appear for her deposition.

Following the deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel an email inquiring why Defendant had not appeared. Defendant’s counsel responded via email, stating that (1) he had called and left a telephone message; (2) the deposition of a third-party witness was not completed; (3) he wanted to depose Plaintiff; and (4) he wanted to depose other witnesses. Further meet and confer efforts were unsuccessful.

Plaintiff filed this motion on December 9, 2024. Defendant filed an opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Any party may obtain discovery…by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) “Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 2025.280 the process by which a nonparty is required to provide discovery is a deposition subpoena.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2020.010, subd. (b)). “A deposition subpoena may command any of the following: …. (c)The attendance and the testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, under Article 5 (commencing with Section 2020.510).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)

Discussion

Defendant contends that the delay in Defendant’s deposition has resulted in significant part from Plaintiff’s counsel’s obstruction of Defendant’s ability to complete the deposition of Nichole.

Nichole is Plaintiff’s daughter and Defendant’s niece and is a key witness in this case. Defendant contends that Nichole told Defendant and her husband that Plaintiff had molested her. However, at the first part of Nichole’s deposition, which remains unfinished, Nichole testified that, although she had told Defendant as such, Plaintiff had never molested or abused her. Defendant contends that completing Nichole’s deposition is critical because of the risk that Nichole’s testimony poses to Defendant’s defense of truth.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to secure Nichole’s appearance in order to continue her deposition and has failed to respond to meet and confer efforts regarding Nichole’s deposition. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s counsel has misrepresented his own meet and confer efforts on Defendant’s deposition by fabricating a phone call. (Opposition at p. 5:12-6:23.) Further, Defendant submits evidence that Defense counsel has attempted to meet and confer in good faith and offered dates for both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s depositions. (Nutter Decl., Ex. D.) Defendant provides evidence that, on December 9, 2024, the day the motion was filed, counsels met and conferred, and Plaintiff’s counsel offered to send new dates later in the week, but never did so, instead filing the motion. (Nutter Decl. ¶ 7.) Defendant’s counsel continued to attempt to set up dates even after the filing of this motion. (Nutter Decl. ¶ 8.)

This is not a valid basis to deny a motion to compel. However, the fault here appears to lie with both parties.

The Court grants the motion to compel, but orders that, in fairness, Nichole’s deposition should be completed first. Counsel can and should work out dates before the hearing. If they do not, then at the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide availability dates for Nichole and Defendant’s counsel shall provide availability dates for Defendant. If the parties cannot decide from among those dates, the Court will select the deposition dates.

The Court does not award sanctions.