Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV21594, Date: 2024-07-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21594    Hearing Date: July 15, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Hearing Date: 7/15/24 

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV21594 MAHER CHAMMAE vs ABRAM TAVERA 

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendant The Estate of Abram Tavera

Notice: Sufficient 

Ruling: THE COURT WILL HEAR FROM THE PARTIES

On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff served a Notice of Deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) and Document Production Requests on Defendant. (Sarkesians Decl., ¶ 2.) On January 17, 2024, Defendant objected to Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition because it was unilaterally set. (Id., ¶ 3.) On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel requesting alterative dates for said deposition. (Id., ¶ 4.) On January 26, 2024, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel stating that counsel cannot comply with the notice of deposition as “no one [] fits the categories” provided. On April 18, 2024, Plaintiff moved the court to compel the deposition of the Estate of Abraham Tavera, which Plaintiff contends was added as a Doe defendant.  (It appears, however, that no judicial officer approved the amendment seeking to name the Estate in place of a Doe defendant.) 

In opposition, Defendant objects to the deposition on the ground that the date was unilaterally selected by Plaintiff’s counsel. Further, Defendant contends that there is no such entity as “The Estate of Abraham Tavera” and that there is no PMK for a non-existent entity.

On May 14, 2024, Department 31 heard the Parties’ arguments and issued a tentative order stating that even in instances where an entity is not in existence for purposes of producing a person most knowledgeable or qualified, a court may direct an entity to elect or appoint an individual who can act as a person most qualified or knowledgeable for purposes of a deposition. (Melendrez v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1347.) An estate cannot speak for itself, nor can counsel represent a client who is dead. There would necessarily need to be an appointed personal representative on behalf of Decedent. It would appear to this Court that Plaintiff would therefore be entitled to take the deposition of Decedent’s designated personal representative and/or successor-in-interest.

Given that this case was only recently transferred to Department 27, the newly assigned judicial officer is unaware of any discussions that may have previously been held regarding a substitution for Decedent as a party to this action. No filing has been submitted by either party since the Court heard from the parties and issued its minute order on May 14, 2024. This Court agrees with Department 31’s tentative decision from May 14, 2024, that the deposition should be held once a personal representative is appointed on behalf of Decedent. Accordingly, this Court will hear from the parties on the status of the substitution or appointment of a personal representative.

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.