Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV42261, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42261    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

          On November 4, 2020, Plaintiffs Alicia Manrras (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation for damages arising from a slip-and-fall accident on Defendant’s premises. The Complaint asserts causes of action for negligence and premises liability.

          On December 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion compelling Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation to produce its Person Most Qualified to appear for deposition and produce responsive documents.  No opposition has been filed to date.

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)  A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

A deposition can be taken of a corporation by examining an officer or agent designated to testify on its behalf. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010.) If the notice of deposition or subpoena served on the entity describes the matters on which questions will be asked “with reasonable particularity,” the entity is under a duty to designate and produce the officers, directors, managing agents or employees “most qualified” to testify on its behalf. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.230.)

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . without having served a valid objection . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) Such a motion “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document…described in the deposition notice[,]” and “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(b).) 

          Plaintiff has included a sufficient meet-and-confer declaration. (Ghermezian Decl. ¶ 10.)

On December 17, 2020, Plaintiff served a Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents and Other Things at Time of Deposition on Defendant. The deposition was scheduled to take place on January 4, 2021, but it did not go forward. (Ghermezian Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) On March 6, 2021, Plaintiff served a second Notice on Defendant, for a deposition scheduled to take place on March 29, 2021. (Ghermezian Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B.) On March 26, 2021, Defendant’s counsel stated that the deposition could not go forward due to a calendar conflict, but counsel never confirmed alternative dates. (Ghermezian Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. C.) On August 19 and August 20, 2021, Defendant again failed to provide available dates. (Ghermezian Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. D.) On September 2, 2021, Plaintiff served another Notice for a deposition scheduled for September 20, 2021; again, the deposition did not go forward. (Ghermezian Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. E.) On October 28, 2021 and June 8, 2022, Defense counsel again failed to provide available dates. (Ghermezian Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. F, G.) Plaintiff served two more Notices for deposition, but again the depositions failed to take place. (Ghermezian Decl. ¶ 8-9, Exs. H, I.)

          The Court finds that five valid deposition notices were served on Defendant. Although it is unclear from Plaintiff’s motion if Defendant served valid, timely objections to these Notices, Plaintiff clearly states that Defendant failed to confirm available dates at least four times after these scheduled depositions were to take place.

          Defendant files no objection to this motion.

          Thus, the motion to compel Defendant’s deposition is GRANTED. However, the Plaintiff has failed to set forth the required “specific facts” showing good cause for the production of the documents requested in the deposition notice. Therefore, the Court denies the motion with respect to that request for document production.

Where a motion to compel a party’s appearance and testimony at deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent, unless the court finds the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Plaintiff moves for sanctions in the amount of $2,460.00 against Defendant and its counsel of record. This amount consists of 6 hours for preparing for the motion at $400.00 per hour and a $60.00 filing fee. The Court grants the request for sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,660.00 (3 hours; no opposition was filed, hence no was reply necessary.) 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 24^th day of January 2023