Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV01655, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01655    Hearing Date: February 29, 2024    Dept: 27

Complaint Filed:   7/21/22 

Trial Date:            7/18/24 

Hon. Lee S. Arian 

Department 27 

Hearing Date:                 2/29/2024 at 1:30 p.m. 

Case Name:                    MARIA DOLORES GUZMAN vs CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Case No.:                        22STCV01655 

Motion:                          Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition and Production of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party:                 Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Responding Party:          Plaintiff MARIA DOLORES GUZMAN

Notice:                            Sufficient

Ruling:                           Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition and Production of Documents is CONTINUED to May 6, 2024

Motion for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED

Background

This is a slip and fall case where Plaintiff alleges that she fell on a sidewalk due to the City of Los Angeles' failure to rectify hazardous conditions. Plaintiff served a second Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) notice upon Defendant on December 28, 2023, for a deposition initially scheduled for January 17, 2024. From January 10, 2024, to January 17, 2024, Plaintiff sent Defendant several meet and confer letters regarding the deposition. Defendant did not provide a response. On January 26, 2024, Plaintiff again requested a deposition date, to which Defendant responded that it would look into it. On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed the current motion to compel the PMK deposition.

Legal Standard  

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.¿¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)¿A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying.¿¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)¿¿ 

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . or employee of a party . . . , 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (a).)  

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)   

Analysis

Plaintiff's motion to compel is deemed premature. Defendant produced emails evidencing that the parties were engaging in meet and confer discussions as of January 27, 2024, wherein Defendant agreed to look into potential PMK deposition dates. (Exhibit 1 to Ticas Decl.) Subsequently, in early February, Defendant proposed several dates in early April for the PMK deposition. (Id.) Until recently, the parties were still in the process of figuring out a schedule for their respective depositions. (Id.)

Accordingly, the court will continue the motion to May 6, 2024, and the parties are ORDERED to further meet and confer to finalize on a deposition schedule before May 6, 2024.

Regarding sanctions, the court found no misuse of the discovery process by Defendant as it was engaged in the meet and confer process before and after the motion's filing, along with proposing several dates for the PMK deposition. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.