Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV14815, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV14815 Hearing Date: November 12, 2024 Dept: 27
MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION
Hearing Date: 11/12/24
CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV14815 GLENDA GANIS, et al. vs CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, et al.
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Responding Party: Defendant City of Los Angeles
Notice: Sufficient
Ruling: Granted
On June 23, 2023,
Plaintiff filed the present trip and fall case against City of Los Angeles. On
August 22, 2024, Plaintiffs served a Notice of Taking PMK Depositions regarding
City’s Policies and Procedures, along with a Request for Production of
Documents, setting the deposition for September 20, 2024. Plaintiffs’ counsel
subsequently sent several meet-and-confer letters regarding the deposition.
On September 17, 2024,
Defendant electronically served objections to the deposition, primarily
asserting that its designated Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) on sidewalk
issues is unavailable due to prior deposition commitments extending into March
and April 2025. Plaintiff finds this timeline unreasonable and now moves to
compel the deposition. Defendant does not oppose the deposition itself but
contends that its PMK is unavailable.
The Court notes that
Defendant’s objection is untimely. Under Code of Civil Procedure section
2025.410(b), objections served within three calendar days of a scheduled
deposition must be served personally. Here, Defendant served its objections
electronically on September 17, 2024, only three days before the scheduled
deposition date of September 20, 2024. Thus, the objection was not served in
the manner prescribed by law and is deemed untimely.
Defendant argues that
Plaintiffs’ RFPs are overly broad but fails to provide any specific argument
supporting this assertion. Upon review, the Court finds most of the RFPs
reasonably tailored to the issues at hand. However, the Court will limit the
temporal scope of RFP Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 16 to the five years preceding the date
of the accident.
Waiting until April
2025—six months beyond the original deposition date—creates an unreasonable
delay in the discovery process. Plaintiff filed this case on June 23, 2023, and
postponing Defendant’s PMK deposition until April 2025 would push the case close
to the two-year mark. Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.714, all
unlimited civil cases should be resolved within two years. At the same time,
the Court acknowledges Defendant’s scheduling concerns and thus orders that
Defendant produce its PMK for deposition within 60 days of this order.
The Court orders
Defendant to pay sanctions in the reasonable amount of $600 within 2 weeks of
this order.
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.