Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 19STCV22473, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV22473, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV22473 Hearing Date: March 18, 2024 Dept: 27

Complaint Filed: 6/27/19

¿¿¿¿

Hon. Lee S. Arian¿¿¿¿

Department 27¿¿¿¿

Tentative Ruling¿¿¿¿

¿¿¿

Hearing Date: 3/18/2024 at 1:30 p.m.¿¿¿¿

Case No./Name: 19STCV22473 EFRONIA MANUKYAN vs ZOFIA WIACEK

Motion: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendant City of LA

Notice: Sufficient¿¿¿¿

¿¿¿¿

Ruling: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IS GRANTED.

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED.

¿¿

Background¿¿

The case arises from a trip and fall incident in which Plaintiff sustained an injury after tripping over a displaced sidewalk crack in the City of Los Angeles. Since July 2023, Plaintiff has been seeking Defendant's PMK (Person Most Knowledgeable) deposition on 8 topics related to the maintenance of the sidewalk, the street light, and city employees who have been to the sidewalk. On August 7, 2023, a deposition for the 3rd and 5th categories was held. On November 16, 2023, a PMK deposition for the remaining categories took place; however, the deponent stated that he was the PMK for only category 2. Defendant never objected to any of Plaintiff's notices of deposition and refused to provide a PMK deposition for the remaining categories. Plaintiff now moves the Court to compel the PMK deposition for categories 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8. Defendant argues that the motion is untimely, and that the information sought from the categories is irrelevant.

Legal Standard¿

Any party may obtain any discovery of information, documents, land, property, or electronically stored information so long as the discoverable matter is not privileged, is relevant to the subject matter and can lead one to admissible evidence.¿(Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)

Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450¿provides in pertinent part the following:¿¿

“(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, 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.¿

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:¿

(1) The motion 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.¿

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040

Meet and Confer

Plaintiff has demonstrated that she attempted to meet and confer numerous times to no avail before filing the present motion. Defendant's counsel also did not make any arguments against the sufficiency of Plaintiff's meet and confer efforts.

Good Cause

Plaintiff demonstrated good cause for the requested deposition and documents as they all relate to the maintenance of the sidewalk, which is at issue in this trip and fall case. Furthermore, under Code of Civil Procedure, § 2025.450(b)(1), a showing of good cause pertains only to the production of documents and not to oral depositions of the PMK categories. Defendant also does not dispute that Plaintiff demonstrated good cause.

Analysis

It is undisputed that a deposition was held on November 16, 2023, for the remaining 6 PMK categories, but the deponent stated that he could only testify as to 1 category. As such, the PMK deposition for the remaining categories did not occur as scheduled on November 16, 2023.

Defendant first argues that the motion is untimely under Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.480, which states that a motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition. The deposition was noticed for November 16, 2023, but the motion was filed on January 30, 2024. However, § 2025.480 refers to the “completion of the record of the deposition.” Plaintiff argues that the record of the deposition was not completed until December 7, 2023, when it was signed by the stenographer. Defendant failed to produce any documents showing the completion of the record of the deposition was on another date.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel PMK deposition is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Person Most Knowledgeable for Categories Nos. 1, 4 and 6 - 8, appear for deposition within 20 days of today.

Sanctions

CCP §2025.450 (g)(1) states:

If a motion under 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.

After the November 16, 2024, deposition, Plaintiff still had the remaining 5 PMK categories at issue. Defendant refused to schedule a new PMK deposition, forcing Plaintiff to file the present motion and incur attorney's fees. Plaintiff requests attorney fees in the amount of $4,200 against Defendant. However, the Court exercises its discretion and lowers the requested sanctions to $1,750. Defendant and its counsel are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions of $1750 to Plaintiff within 20 days of today’s date.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.