Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV46786, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46786    Hearing Date: April 13, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

On December 23, 2021, plaintiffs Russell Patten, individually and as the successor-in-interest to and administrator of the Estate of Daniel Patten II (“Decedent”), and Jennifer Patten (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against defendants City of Carson (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”) (also erroneously sued as “Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department”), the State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol (“State”), and the California Department of Transportation (“CalTrans”).  Plaintiffs also named Alonzo Salazar (“Salazar”) and Gustavo Tarin-Cruz (“Tarin-Cruz”) as individual defendants.  The action arises from illegal drag racing between Tony Tatum (“Tatum”) and Henry Hurtado (“Hurtado”) that resulted in Decedent’s death.  Plaintiffs allege that Salazar and Tarin-Cruz were involved in organizing, coordinating, and starting the race between Tatum and Hurtado; Plaintiffs did not name Tatum and Hurtado as defendants. 

On August 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 

On August 16, 2022, City filed a cross-complaint against Tatum and Hurtado for indemnity, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, and contribution. 

On October 21, 2022, Tatum filed a notice of settlement and application for determination of good faith settlement.  That motion will be heard on April 24, 2023.

City now seeks an order for leave to conduct the depositions of cross-defendants Tatum and Hurtado (hereinafter, “Cross-Defendants”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1995.

The motions are unopposed.

II.      LEGAL STANDARD

Any party may obtain discovery by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)  If the witness be a prisoner, confined in a jail within this state, an order for his examination in the jail upon deposition, may be made (1) by the court itself in which the action or special proceeding is pending, unless it be a small claims court, or (2) by a justice of the Supreme Court, or a judge of the superior court of the county where the action or proceeding is pending, if pending before a small claims court, or before a judge or other person out of court.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1995.)  Such order can only be made on the motion of a party, upon affidavit showing the nature of the action or proceeding, the testimony expected from the witness, and its materiality.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1996.)  “Material facts” are facts that relate to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350, subd. (a)(2).)  If the witness be imprisoned in a jail in the county where the action or proceeding is pending, his production may be required.  In all other cases his examination, when allowed, must be taken upon deposition.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1997.)  

III.     DISCUSSION

          City seeks leave to depose Cross-Defendants because they are (1) parties to this action, (2) material witnesses of the underlying incident, (3) and are each imprisoned within a county different from where this action is pending.  Further, City seeks to depose Cross-Defendants regarding their respective marital status, financial status, and involvement in the illegal drag race.

City argues that the depositions are necessary because the Cross-Defendants are the persons most qualified to answer questions regarding their financial status, marital status, and involvement in the underlying incident.  Deposing Cross-Defendants will also allow City to determine whether Cross-Defendants should be afforded a dismissal.  With respect to Tatum, City further argues that a deposition is critical to the adjudication of Tatum’s good faith settlement motion.

City meets its burden in showing the materiality of Cross-Defendants’ depositions.  Any party may obtain discovery by taking in California the oral deposition of any party to the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)  If the party is incarcerated, this Court is empowered to order their deposition upon a showing of the nature of the action or proceeding, the testimony expected from the witness, and its materiality.  (Code Civ. Proc., § § 1995, 1996.)  Here, Cross-Defendants are incarcerated individuals who are parties to this action. City demonstrates that their deposition is material to their apportionment of fault and whether their dismissal from this action is warranted.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS City’s motions.

IV.     CONCLUSION

Defendant/Cross-Complainant City of Carson’s unopposed Motion For Leave to Conduct the Deposition of Cross-Defendant and Prisoner Tony Tatum at Sierra Conservation Center in Jamestown, California and/or Sugar Pine Fire Camp in Bella Vista, California pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1995 is GRANTED.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant City of Carson’s unopposed Motion For Leave to Conduct the Deposition of Cross-Defendant and Prisoner Henry Hurtado at Sierra Conservation Center in Jamestown, California pursuant to Code of Civil section 1995 is GRANTED.

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.  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 13th day of April 2023