Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV19175, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19175    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: 27

 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On June 13, 2022, plaintiffs Christopher Lee, Robert Lee, and Christine Lee (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Christius Poindexter (“Poindexter”), Payless Car Rental, Inc. (“Payless”), and PV Holding Corp. (collectively, “Defendants”).  Plaintiffs allege that on October 9, 2020, Poindexter caused an automobile accident with Plaintiffs in a vehicle that Poindexter operated and had rented from Payless.

On July 14, 2022 Plaintiffs served Payless with their Notice of Taking Deposition of Employee(s) and/or Person(s) Most Qualified for Defendant [Payless] (“Deposition Notice”), scheduled for August 9, 2022.  (Peabody Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.)  The Deposition Notice concerned the following categories: (1) Payless’s Employee(s) who rented the subject vehicle to Poindexter; (2) the Supervisor(s) of the subject Payless Car Rental where Poindexter rented the subject vehicle, at the time of the incident; and (3) the Person(s) Most Qualified regarding the investigation of the incident.  (Id.)  

On July 29, 2022, Payless served objections to the Deposition Notice, citing defendant counsel’s unavailability and Payless’s failure to yet identify the persons described in Plaintiffs’ deposition notice.  (Peabody Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 3.)        On August 1, 2022, counsel for Payless emailed plaintiffs’ counsel stating that the depositions would not be going forward and attached Payless’s previously served objections.  (Peabody Decl., ¶ 6, Exs. 4, 5.)  

On August 17, 2022, after Payless’s counsel failed to provide available deposition dates as requested by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs served their Notice of First Continuance of Taking Deposition of Employee(s) and/or Person(s) Most Qualified for Defendant [Payless], scheduled for September 9, 2022.  (Peabody Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. 8.)  Payless’s counsel indicated that (1) no progress had been made in identifying the individuals for the depositions and therefore, Payless could not provide available deposition dates, and (2) Payless’s counsel would be unavailable on September 9, 2022 because of a Mandatory Settlement Conference scheduled for that morning.  (Peabody Decl., ¶¶ 10-11, Exs. 9, 11.)  Payless served its objection on these grounds to Plaintiffs’ First Continued Deposition Notice on September 2, 2022.  (Peabody Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. 12.) 

On September 19, 2022, after Payless’s counsel failed to provide available deposition dates as requested by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs served their Notice of Second Continuance of Taking Deposition of Employee(s) and/or Person(s) Most Qualified for Defendant [Payless], scheduled for October 11, 2022.  (Peabody Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. 15.)  On October 4, 2022, Payless served its objection to Plaintiff’s Second Continued Deposition Notice, citing Payless’s failure to identify the persons listed in Plaintiffs’ noticed categories of Defendant [Payless’s] Employee(s) and Person(s) Most Qualified.  (Peabody Decl., ¶ 17, Ex. 17.)  To date, Plaintiffs’ noticed depositions have not taken place, nor has Payless identified persons that it will produce for the deposition or provided alternative dates for the same.  (Peabody Decl., ¶ 18.)

Plaintiffs now move to compel Payless to produce for deposition (1) the employee who rented the subject vehicle to Poindexter; (2) the supervisor(s) of the subject Payless Car Rental where Poindexter rented the subject vehicle, at the time of the incident; and (3) the person(s) most qualified regarding the investigation of the incident, and to produce responsive documents.  Payless opposes and Plaintiffs reply.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Any party may obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010.)  Service of a proper deposition notice is “effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280, subd. (a).)  If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested.  In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.230.)  If, after service of a deposition notice, a party fails to appear for examination or fails to produce for inspection any document described in the deposition notice, without having served a valid objection under section 2025.410, the party noticing the deposition may move for an order compelling attendance or production.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (a).)  Such a motion “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b).)

III.        DISCUSSION

A.   Motion to Compel Person Most Qualified Deposition

Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Payless to designate and produce for deposition its person most qualified on all categories identified in the Deposition Notice because Payless failed to serve valid objections to Plaintiffs’ Deposition Notices and because Plaintiffs will be prejudiced absent the Court’s intervention.

In opposition, Payless argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because on January 9, 2023, Poindexter indicated in written discovery responses propounded by Plaintiffs that Poindexter rented the vehicle in question from Budget Car Rental.  Payless then requested Plaintiffs take the instant motion off calendar based on Poindexter’s verified discovery responses, but did not receive a response.  (See Bramlage Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. C.)

In reply, Plaintiffs contend that Payless provided responses to Plaintiffs’ request for admission wherein Payless admitted that a valid rental agreement was in effect between Payless and Poindexter on the date of the incident.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs are not entitled to an order compelling Payless to produce its employees most qualified to appear and testify at deposition as to the first and second categories in Plaintiffs’ Deposition Notice.  Under the first category, Plaintiffs seek to depose the Payless Employee(s) who rented the subject vehicle to Poindexter.  Under the second category, Plaintiffs seek to depose the Supervisor(s) of the subject Payless Car Rental where Poindexter rented the subject vehicle, at the time of the incident.  Payless has submitted evidence that Poindexter did not rent from Payless the vehicle involved in the accident with Plaintiffs.  (See Bramlage Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. A, at pp. 9-11.)  Thus, contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, a failure to identify a person most qualified is a valid objection.  Payless would not be able to produce the employee who rented the subject vehicle to Poindexter or the supervisor of the subject Payless Car Rental where Poindexter rented the subject vehicle given Poindexter’s written discovery responses. 

However, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to an order compelling Payless to produce its person most qualified to appear and testify at deposition to the third category of “Person(s) Most Qualified regarding the investigation of the incident.”  Even if Payless cannot produce an employee or supervisor regarding the subject vehicle, Payless was still required to produce a person most qualified regarding Payless’s investigation of the incident, even if to simply indicate that Payless did not possess any records of a rental transaction between Poindexter and Payless.  Such discovery is relevant in determining whether Poindexter rented the subject vehicle from Payless, and further, whether Payless is the correct defendant in this action. Therefore, the Court finds that an order compelling Payless to produce its person most qualified to appear and testify at deposition to the third category is appropriate.   

B.   Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiffs also seek an order compelling Payless to produce responsive documents at deposition.  A motion under subdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).)  Here, Plaintiffs do not provide any facts to justify the production for inspection of any document or information described in the deposition notice.  Absent a showing of good cause, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request for production of documents.

C.   Request for Sanctions

Plaintiffs request that the Court impose monetary sanctions against Payless and their counsel of record for making an unmeritorious objection to discovery with substantial justification. 

Payless also requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record for continuing the prosecution of the instant motion without substantial justification.

 The Court finds that imposition of monetary sanctions on either party is not warranted.  Payless admitted in its written discovery responses that a valid rental agreement was in effect between Payless and Poindexter.  (Reply, Ex. 1.)  Poindexter admitted in his written discovery responses that he did not rent the subject vehicle from Payless.  (See Bramlage Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. A, at pp. 9-11.)   Given this evidence, Plaintiff had substantial justification to bring the instant motion and Payless had a meritorious objection to Plaintiffs’ Deposition Notices.  Therefore, the requests for sanctions are denied.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Payless Car Rental Inc.’s person most qualified and produce documents for inspection is granted in part.  Defendant Payless is ordered to produce a person most qualified as to the third category (Person(s) Most Qualified regarding the investigation of the incident) within 30 days of service of this order.

Plaintiffs’ request for inspection of documents is denied.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied.

Defendant Payless Car Rental, Inc.’s request for sanctions is denied.

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 14th day of February 2023