Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV26067, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV26067, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26067 Hearing Date: March 25, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian¿¿¿

Department 27¿¿¿

Tentative Ruling¿¿¿

¿¿¿

Hearing Date: 3/25/2024 at 1:30 p.m.¿¿¿

Case No./Name: 21STCV26067 BRITHNEY GONZALEZ vs BRENDA JIMENEZ

Motion: Motion to Compel Oral Deposition, Requests for Production of Documents and Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendant Brenda Jimenez

Notice: Sufficient¿¿¿

¿¿

Ruling: Motion to Compel Oral Deposition is GRANTED.

Motion to Compel Requests for Production of Documents at the Deposition is DENIED.

Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Background

On July 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed the present auto accident case against Defendant Brenda Jimenez. Defendant disputes liability. Defendant’s deposition was noticed on February 22, 2023, May 23, 2023, June 27, 2023, and December 4, 2023. Each time, Defendant stated that the deponent was not available and did not provide any alternative dates. Plaintiff now moves to compel the oft-scheduled deposition. Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not meet and confer before filing the present motion.

Legal Standard¿and Analysis¿¿

¿¿¿¿

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¿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.

Plaintiff seeks the deposition of Defendant, who disputes liability. Good cause for this deposition is self-evident and is also not contested by Defendant.

However, Defendant opposes the motion on the basis that a declaration of good faith meet and confer is not attached to the motion. Upon examining the moving party’s declaration, the Court finds that Plaintiff's counsel declared that “Defendant's counsel has refused to produce Defendant to date despite multiple requests for mutually available dates” after Defendant failed to appear for the last noticed deposition date of December 27, 2023. (Declaration of JONATHAN M. KASHANI ¶ 13.) Given the core issue at dispute between the parties is the deponent’s availability, there is not much to meet and confer on other than Defendant’s availability. Moreover, Plaintiff's counsel provided additional information regarding the meet and confer efforts in the reply brief. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel has satisfied the meet and confer requirement as to Defendant’s oral deposition.

Considering the numerous notices issued for Defendant's deposition and the fast-approaching trial date with liability still in dispute, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s deposition. The Court ORDERS Defendant to sit for her deposition within 30 days of today.

However, Plaintiff did not make a sufficient showing of good cause for the documents demanded. Neither the motion nor the reply contains any information demonstrating good cause for the requested documents. Defendant’s declaration also lacked any information on meet and confer efforts relating to Defendant’s objections to the requests for production to be produced at the deposition. Thus, Plaintiff's motion for request for production is DENIED.

Sanctions is DENIED as Defendant and her counsel acted with substantial justification.

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.