Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 19STCV24378, Date: 2024-09-23 Tentative Ruling

CASE NO./NAME: 19STCV24378 TODD DEIDEL vs UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION

This action is brought under the Federal Employers Liability Act (“FELA”) for a cervical spine injury that Plaintiff Todd Deidel sustained while operating equipment on Defendant Union Pacific’s yard track during the course of his employment with the railroad. Plaintiff alleges that the equipment he was operating derailed due to defects in the rail in the yard that Defendant was responsible for maintaining.

1. Jeff Cole, Plaintiff’s supervisor to whom Plaintiff attempted to report the incident;

3. The PMQ(s) from Union Pacific regarding various testimony on training and track inspection and maintenance.

The depositions were scheduled to occur on May 17, 2024, and May 21, 2024. On May 10, 2024, Defendant served objections to the deposition notices. Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant’s employees and PMQ depositions.

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.)

“(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.

(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 or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

Defendant served timely and written objections to the depositions on May 10, 2024, stating that the depositions were unilaterally noticed without input regarding the deponents or Defendant counsel’s availability. Given Defendant’s valid objection, Plaintiff is required to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel. However, Plaintiff counsel’s declaration did not show that there were any meet and confer efforts, as the exhibits that purportedly show such efforts were not attached to the motion. The Court, therefore, cannot assess whether Plaintiff has met the meet and confer requirement prior to filing the motion.

Furthermore, the motion did not demonstrate good cause for the documents requested. Although Plaintiff argues that good cause exists for the deposition itself, the statute specifically requires a showing of good cause justifying the production of documents for inspection. (CCP 2025.450 (b)(1).) Plaintiff has not met this burden. The argument for good cause related to the deposition does not automatically extend to the production of documents.

Although discovery is currently open and Plaintiff is entitled to take Defendant’s PMQ deposition and depositions of Plaintiff’s supervisors, the motion is procedurally flawed and therefore is denied without prejudice.[1]

The Court strongly encourages the parties to meet and confer and schedule the requested depositions without the need for further court intervention.

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.

[1] Substantively, the Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s arguments. First, Defendant argues that there is a diligence requirement to schedule Plaintiff’s PMQ or employees’ depositions. Defendant has not provided any legal authority on such a requirement, and the Court is not aware of any. The current discovery cut-off date is October 18, 2024, and Plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery prior to that cut-off date.

Second, Defendant argues that the deposition notices did not provide enough time between when the notice was served and when the depositions will take place. Defendant cites to CCP § 2025.270 (c); however, this section governs deposition subpoenas. The depositions of Jordan Morgan and Jeff Cole, who are both employees of Defendant, and Defendant’s PMQ are governed by CCP § 2025.270(a), which requires that “an oral deposition shall be scheduled for a date at least 10 days after service of the deposition notice.” The notices at issue were served on May 3, and the depositions were to take place on May 17 and May 21, more than 10 days after the notices were served.