Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 20STCV29052, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: May 25, 2023

Case Name: Sendhil, et al. v. Regents of the University of California, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV28561

Matter: (1) Motion for Protective Order

(2) Motion to Compel Deposition 

Moving Party: (1) Defendant Regents of the University of California

(2) Plaintiffs Geetha Sendhil and Carlo Giovanni

Responding Party: (1) Plaintiffs Geetha Sendhil and Carlo Giovanni

(2) Defendant Regents of the University of California

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion for Protective Order is granted.

The Motion to Compel is denied.

Defendant to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is an employment action.  Plaintiffs Geetha Sendhil and Carlo Giovanni seek to depose Chancellor Gene Block of UCLA.  Defendant Regents of the University of California seeks a protective order precluding this deposition because Block is an apex witness and Plaintiffs have not shown his personal involvement in this action.

Chancellor Block is indeed an apex witness as the primary executive officer of UCLA.  

“[W]hen a plaintiff seeks to depose a corporate president or other official at the highest level of corporate management, and that official moves for a protective order to prohibit the deposition, the trial court should first determine whether the plaintiff has shown good cause that the official has unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable information. If not, as will presumably often be the case in the instance of a large national or international corporation, the trial court should issue the protective order and first require the plaintiff to obtain the necessary discovery through less intrusive methods. These would include interrogatories directed to the high-level official to explore the state of his or her knowledge or involvement in plaintiff's case; the deposition of lower level employees with appropriate knowledge and involvement in the subject matter of the litigation; and the organizational deposition of the corporation itself, which will require the corporation to produce for deposition the most qualified officer or employee to testify on its behalf as to the specified matters to be raised at the deposition. (§ 2025, subd. (d)(6).) Should these avenues be exhausted, and the plaintiff make a colorable showing of good cause that the high-level official possesses necessary information to the case, the trial court may then lift the protective order and allow the deposition to proceed.”  (Liberty Mutual Ins. Co v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1289.)  In short, there must be “a reasonable indication of the officer’s personal knowledge of the case and . . . exhaustion of less intrusive discovery methods.”  (Id. at p. 1287.)

Plaintiffs argue that Block’s deposition is warranted because “Defendant Regents failed and refused to place and/or hire Plaintiffs in other positions within Regents, despite their clear qualifications for open positions. Plaintiffs were entitled to termination assistance, including assignment to another position ‘at the discretion of the Chancellor’ pursuant to University policy PPSM-64. Plaintiffs were not assisted at all by the University after they reported the discriminatory and retaliatory conduct of the Regents. Thus, Plaintiffs are allowed to conduct discovery as to why Chancellor Block did not use his discretion to assist Plaintiffs and whether his discretion was guided by retaliatory animus.”

Plaintiffs have failed to show, by less intrusive discovery, that Block actually had any personal involvement with Plaintiffs’ termination assistance, notwithstanding UCLA’s general policy.  Therefore, they are not entitled to depose Block as an apex witness.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has resisted less intrusive discovery, but whether Defendant has failed to respond or has improperly responded to other discovery is not the inquiry for the instant Motions.  

In sum, the Motion for Protective Order is granted.  The Motion to Compel is denied.  The Court declines to award sanctions at this time.  

Defendant to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.