Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV27742, Date: 2025-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27742    Hearing Date: March 28, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Motion to Compel Paramount’s PMK

On January 16, 2025, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Defendant Paramount’s person most knowledgeable (PMK) to take place on February 6, 2025. Defense counsel served objections to the notice. The parties met and conferred, and on February 21, 2025, defense counsel confirmed that Paramount’s Vice President of Production Safety, Chris Velvin, would appear as Paramount’s PMK for deposition on March 4, 2025. On March 3, 2025, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff to inform that the deposition would not proceed as scheduled. Plaintiff appeared for the deposition and took a certificate of non-appearance when Paramount failed to produce its PMK. Defense counsel did not offer alternative dates.

Defendant’s opposition does not dispute this timeline. Instead, Defendant states that the day before the March 4 deposition, it learned Mr. Velvin was not the appropriate PMK because he was providing services to the production at issue and lacked the requisite knowledge. Defendant further states that it scheduled the deposition of Kathleen Arnold on March 18, 2025, in both her individual capacity and as Paramount’s PMK. Defendant also agreed to reimburse Plaintiff for reasonable costs incurred due to Paramount’s cancellation of the March 4 deposition.

In reply, Plaintiff states that as of March 21, 2025, Paramount has still failed to produce an appropriate PMK. On March 18, 2025, Ms. Arnold appeared for deposition but stated on the record that she was not employed by Paramount Global and was not the person most qualified to testify on any of the PMK categories. (Holcomb Decl., ¶ 2.) Ms. Arnold testified that she worked for Viacom International, Inc., not Paramount. Plaintiff’s counsel went through each of the noticed categories, and Ms. Arnold confirmed she was not the PMK for any of them. (Holcomb Decl., ¶ 2.) The deposition was terminated shortly thereafter.

Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to take its PMK deposition. In fact, Defendant agreed to produce its PMK on two separate occasions. The first time, Defendant failed to produce its witness on the eve of the scheduled deposition. The second time, Defendant produced an individual who expressly disclaimed PMK status as to all noticed categories. Defendant even acknowledges its failure to produce the PMK and agreed to reimburse Plaintiff for the costs incurred due to the March 4 cancellation.

Accordingly, the Court orders Defendant Paramount to produce a properly prepared PMK within 20 days of this order. The Court further awards sanctions in the reasonable amount of $5,000 to Plaintiff for costs incurred in taking the non-appearance and reasonable attorney’s fees for bringing this motion. Because Defendant did not, in fact, produce a PMK prepared to testify as to the noticed categories, the motion was necessary to bring the issue to the Court’s attention and to secure Defendant’s compliance with its discovery obligations. Sanctions are against Defendant Paramount and its attorney of record jointly and severally payable to Plaintiff within 20 days of today.

Motion to Compel Golden Ranch’s PMK

On January 16, 2025, Plaintiff served a deposition notice for Golden Ranch’s person most knowledgeable (PMK) to appear on January 31, 2025. On January 27, 2025, defense counsel served objections to the notice. In February, the parties met and conferred, and on February 18, 2025, defense counsel stated she was working on obtaining dates for the deposition. However, defense counsel failed to respond to Plaintiff’s follow-up email requesting confirmation of those dates.

Golden Oak Ranch Properties, represented by the same counsel as Paramount, argues that it has not refused to produce a PMK in bad faith, but instead has experienced difficulty identifying a proper witness. Defendant proposed a stipulation agreeing to produce its PMK prior to the discovery cut-off and to waive any timeliness objection if the deposition had to be taken after the cut-off due to scheduling conflicts.

Despite Defendant’s representations, Golden Ranch has yet to produce its PMK or provide a firm deposition date. The deposition categories at issue are directly relevant to Golden Ranch’s ownership and operation of the property where Plaintiff was injured, its knowledge of the subject Nickelodeon production, and its safety protocols and policies. Plaintiff is entitled to this discovery, and Defendant has failed to comply despite being on notice since mid-January. Further, Defendant does not dispute in opposition that Plaintiff is entitled to the PMK deposition. Instead, Defendant argues that it has acted in good faith in attempting to identify an appropriate witness.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to compel Golden Ranch’s PMK deposition. Golden Ranch is ordered to produce its PMK for deposition within 20 days of the date of this order. The Court further imposes monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,000 against Golden Ranch. Defendant has been aware of the deposition notice since mid-January but failed to produce a witness or provide dates until after Plaintiff filed the present motion. The proposed stipulation to produce the PMK was only offered in response to the motion, indicating that the filing was necessary to obtain compliance. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in bringing this motion.

Sanctions are against Defendant Golden Ranch and its attorney of record jointly and severally payable to Plaintiff within 20 days of today.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.