Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV22778, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22778    Hearing Date: May 1, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

This is a personal injury lawsuit arising from a motor vehicle accident in Los Angeles, California, on September 22, 2021. Defendant Manuel del Campo Jr. was driving a box truck in the course and scope of his employment with N.A. Trading, LLC when, in an apparent instance of road rage, he reversed the truck and collided with vehicles stopped behind him at a red light. Defendant del Campo reversed into the vehicles twice, then drove away from the scene without stopping. Plaintiffs were in one of the vehicles that was struck.

On January 29, 2025, Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of Defendant del Campo for February 14, 2025. On February 6, 2025, Defendant’s counsel advised that they had not been able to make contact with Defendant del Campo and requested that the deposition be taken off calendar and rescheduled to the following week, to which Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed. On March 17, 2025, Defendant’s counsel advised that they still had not made contact with Defendant del Campo and, as a result, could not fully respond to Plaintiffs’ written discovery requests or make del Campo available for deposition.

Plaintiffs now move the Court for an order compelling Defendant del Campo’s deposition.

Defendant’s counsel filed an opposition stating that Manuel del Campo has not been employed by Defendant N.A. Trading, LLC since the date of the incident, as his employment was terminated that same day. (Yassin Decl., ¶ 3.) Defense counsel has made numerous and varied attempts to contact Defendant del Campo, all without success. (Yassin Decl., ¶¶ 4–9; Madrid Decl., ¶¶ 2–8.)

Defendant argues that the motion should be denied for two reasons. First, defense counsel is unaware whether Defendant del Campo knows he has been named as a defendant in this action or that his deposition has been noticed. (Yassin Decl., ¶ 13.) Second, Defendant N.A. Trading, LLC has agreed to stipulate to liability and to admit that Defendant del Campo was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the incident. (Yassin Decl., ¶ 12.) Defendant contends that this admission eliminates the need for del Campo’s deposition.

The issue with the first argument is that Plaintiff is seeking to compel del Campo’s deposition not as N.A. Trading LLC’s employee, but as a named defendant in this case. Therefore, the claim that del Campo is a former employee is irrelevant. Moreover, the deposition was properly noticed and served on del Campo’s attorney of record, who accepted electronic service on his behalf. The fact that counsel has not been able to make contact with del Campo does not relieve him of his discovery obligations.

As to the second argument, although Plaintiff filed a reply, Plaintiff failed to address Defendant’s representation that N.A. Trading, LLC has agreed to admit both that Defendant del Campo was acting within the course and scope of his employment and to liability. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s argument that the motion is now moot as a result of this admission.

Accordingly, the motion is denied. Sanctions are also denied, as defense counsel communicated the intent to admit liability on March 18, 2025, prior to Plaintiff filing the instant motion on March 19, 2025.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL INITIAL

On February 3, 2025, Plaintiffs Rocio Torres and Kassandra Torres served Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant Manuel Del Campo, Jr. Responses to these discovery requests were due by March 7, 2025. Plaintiffs granted Defendant an extension to respond by March 21, 2025. To date, no substantive and verified responses have been received due to defense counsel’s inability to locate or contact Defendant. Plaintiffs now move the Court to compel initial responses.

Defendant opposes the motion on the ground that Del Campo is missing and unreachable despite counsel’s efforts, and that his insurer, Sompo America Insurance Company, has filed a motion to intervene. However, Del Campo was properly served via substituted service, and an answer has been filed on his behalf by counsel, who has also accepted service of motions and discovery. Accordingly, service was valid and Defendant has appeared in this action. He is therefore subject to the Court’s jurisdiction and obligated to comply with all discovery obligations. Defendant has cited no legal authority excusing his failure to respond, and the pending motion to intervene does not relieve him of his current obligations.

Defendant further states that on March 21, 2025, counsel served unverified responses to the discovery. (Yassin Decl., ¶ 9.) However, the email in which Plaintiffs granted the extension clearly states: “We will agree to extend your client’s deadline to provide substantive verified responses by 14 days, to March 21, 2025.” The responses were not verified and presumably not substantive. Moreover, Defendant did not attach the responses to the opposition for the Court to assess their sufficiency.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motions and orders Defendant Del Campo to serve complete and verified responses to the discovery at issue without objections within 40 days of today. The Court also imposes sanctions in the amount of $1,000 against Defendant Del Campo only, as defense counsel has acted diligently in attempting to locate him. Sanctions are payable to Plaintiffs 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.