Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV40614, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV40614    Hearing Date: January 22, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On December 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this action, alleging that on January 14, 2022, Plaintiff Cathy Feck was driving northbound on State Route 95 in Lake Havasu, Arizona, with Charles Feck (the “decedent”) and Dolores Adams as passengers. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Gregory Owen failed to stop at an intersection and collided with her vehicle, causing injuries to Cathy Feck and Dolores Adams and fatal injuries to Charles Feck.

On September 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Gregory Owen’s deposition. On October 31, 2024, the Court granted the motion and ordered Defendant’s deposition. Plaintiffs subsequently noticed the deposition on the same day.

Defendant now moves for a protective order, asserting that he was recently hospitalized for a transient ischemic attack (TIA) and that his treating physician has advised against participating in stressful situations, such as a deposition, due to his medical condition. Defendant’s treating neurologist, Dr. Chow, stated on December 20, 2024, that participation in a deposition could significantly increase Defendant’s risk of another embolic stroke, which could have serious medical consequences, including the potential for death. (Chow Decl., ¶¶ 9-14.) No opposition to the motion has been filed. The trial is currently set for June 9, 2025.

Legal Standard

CCP section 2031.060 provides that a party can move for a protective order “[w]hen an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060(a).) The court may make any order that justice requires to protect any party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense upon a showing of good cause. (Id., § 2031.060(b).) 

Where good cause is shown, courts may enter protective orders limiting depositions. “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420(b).) Courts have considerable discretion in granting and crafting protective orders. (Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 584, 588.) A court may quash a subpoena entirely or partially, and issue an order to protect parties, witnesses or consumers from unreasonable or oppressive demands including violations of privacy. (Code Civ. Proc., §1987.1; Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2008) ¶ 8:598. See also generally Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Trials & Ev. (The Rutter Group 2008) ¶1:91.) 

Discussion

In July 2024, Defendant suffered a TIA and concussion and has been recovering from the stroke and post-concussion syndrome since then. While the Court acknowledges Defendant's medical condition and finds that proceeding with the deposition at this time could be oppressive, the Court finds good cause to grant a protective order only for a disctinct, reasonable period. Defendant appears to seek an indefinite stay of his deposition without providing a clear timeline for recovery. Neither Defendant’s counsel nor his treating physician has offered an estimate of when Defendant will be fit to proceed with the deposition.

The Court recognizes the importance of Defendant’s health; however, Plaintiffs are entitled to take his deposition, and this case has been pending for over two years since its filing on December 28, 2022. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.714, cases of this nature are expected to be resolved within two years. Given that Defendant’s deposition remains outstanding, further delays will extend the case well beyond the expected timeline. Accordingly, the Court will hear from the parties to establish a reasonable timeframe for when Defendant will be available for deposition.