Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV00437, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00437    Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICE

            Plaintiffs Samson Bareh and Gen Bareh filed this action on January 9, 2023.  On February 17, 2023, they served a notice for the deposition of Samson Bareh to take place on February 28, 2023.  On February 21, 2023, Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC objected to the deposition notice because the deposition date was set too soon (February 28 rather than March 2 or thereafter).  On February 27, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to quash the deposition notice.

            The parties should be able to schedule depositions without the court’s involvement.  The parties should have been able to have a conversation about the deposition date and should have been able to agree on a date in March.  Scheduling depositions is one of the most basic tasks of litigation.  Both sides failed to meet and confer professionally and in good faith to set the deposition date.  Instead of picking up the phone and working on the schedule, the parties sent letters and emails back and forth, which accomplished nothing and resulted in this motion. 

            Defendant asserts that because Plaintiffs have not served complete verified responses to discovery and have not produced documents, the deposition cannot go forward.  The July 8, 2022 CMO states, “Unless stipulated otherwise by all parties or ordered by the Court upon a showing of good cause, no depositions of Plaintiff or product identification witness may proceed until and unless” the plaintiff has provided authorization forms, produced copies of social security, military, medical and other records, and served verified responses to standard interrogatories.  (July 8, 2022 CMO , Appendix B at p. 5.)  Defendant’s position that the deposition cannot go forward because Plaintiffs have not complied with this requirement in the CMO is undermined by the fact that on February 21, 2023, Defendant served its own notice for Samson Bareh’s deposition to take place on March 14, 2023.  Thus, on February 21, 2023, Defendant believed Plaintiffs had sufficiently complied with the CMO to allow Samson Bareh’s deposition to go forward on March 14, 2023.  Defendant’s February 21 deposition notice then resulted in Plaintiffs filing a motion for a protective order, set for a later hearing date.

            The two discovery motions, hundreds of pages of declarations and exhibits, and many letters and emails are a waste of the clients’ and court’s resources.  Plaintiffs have a right to depose Samson Bareh.  And, as evidenced by the deposition notices served by both Plaintiffs and Defendant, both sides believe now is the time for the deposition to take place.

            This dispute is really about who goes first.  Plaintiffs want to go first in examining Samson Bareh.  Defendant wants to go first in examining Samson Bareh.  Because Plaintiffs have the burden of proof at trial, because Plaintiffs will present their case first at trial, and because Plaintiffs are taking this deposition to preserve Samson Bareh’s testimony given his physical condition and for potential use at trial, Plaintiffs will start the examination at the deposition.

            The motion is DENIED.  Samson Bareh is to be deposed within the next ten days.

            The moving party is to give notice.