Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 21STCV40431, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV40431, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40431 Hearing Date: October 18, 2023 Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE: October 18, 2023 TRIAL DATE: November 22, 2023

CASE: Nancy Gossett v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV40431

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Nancy Gossett

RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition

I. BACKGROUND

On November 3, 2021, Plaintiff, Nancy Gossett, initiated this premises liability action against Defendant, City of Los Angeles, for injuries Plaintiff sustained while walking on an uplifted public sidewalk.

On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff noticed the Defendant’s deposition. Pursuant to Defendant’s request, Plaintiff took the deposition off-calendar so that the parties could participate in mediation and possibly resolve the matter. The matter was not resolved at mediation. Plaintiff then re-noticed the deposition for Defendant for September 13, 2023. Defendant stated its deponent was not available for the noticed deposition date. Defendant provided alternate deposition dates that were either after the trial date or after the discovery cut off date.

On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable prior to the discovery cut off date. Plaintiff seeks sanctions.

The motion is unopposed.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Any party may obtain discovery by taking in California the oral deposition of any person. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action…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 Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Monetary Sanctions¿

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)¿¿

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.¿¿¿¿

“If a motion under [Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450] subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)¿¿¿¿

III. DISCUSSION

It is uncontested that Plaintiff properly noticed the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable (PMK). It is further uncontested that Defendant did not make its PMK available for deposition prior to the discovery cut off date. Given that this discovery is necessary for Plaintiff to prepare for trial, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order directing Defendant to produce its PMK for deposition prior to the close of discovery.

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant. Given that the Court will grant the motion, sanctions are mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Defendant in the total sum of $600 consisting of one hour at plaintiff’s counsel’s time.

IV. CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant City of Los Angeles is ordered to produce its person most knowledgeable for deposition no later than the close of discovery in this matter.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to pay $600 in sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, within 30 days of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated: October 18, 2023 ___________________________________

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

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.