Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22STCV029276, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV029276    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: C

KHACHIKYAN v. PLATINUM TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC.

CASE NO.:  22STCV29276

HEARING:  03/06/24

#ADD-ON

Intervenor PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Appointing a Discovery Referee is DENIED without prejudice. 

Moving Party to give Notice.

Plaintiff-in-Intervention PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY and Defendant MIGUEL ANGEL PACHECO (collectively “Moving Party”) move for the appointment of a discovery referee to preside over oral depositions based upon the manner in which Plaintiff’s counsel has conducted herself during several depositions.  Moving Party also requests that a discovery referee be appointed to “determine any and all disputes relevant to the proceedings and scheduling of depositions.” (Motion 2:7-8.) Moving Party indicates that at there are “approximately 25 more fact depositions and then 10 expert depositions” affected. (Motion 11:16.)

In Opposition, Plaintiffs maintain that the reason depositions have not been completed to date is due to the Moving Party’s own dilatory tactics. In their Supplemental Opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the Motion should be denied because Plaintiff Ani Khachikyan is unable to pay for a discovery referee.

The benefits of appointing a discovery referee are apparent to the Court.  There are a number of depositions remaining; and the parties have relied upon having motions/requests heard by way of ex parte applications due to the preferential trial designation and the Court’s congested calendar.  A discovery referee can more quickly and efficiently resolve the parties’ outstanding discovery conflicts, which would enable this case to proceed to trial as soon as possible.  Moreover, due to the highly contentious nature of the pending litigation, and accusations of incivility during depositions, a discovery referee can address any improper conduct as it occurs during a deposition. 

Notwithstanding these apparent benefits, the court’s authority to appoint a discovery referee is limited where a party establishes an inability to pay a pro rata share of the costs.  A court shall not appoint a referee at a cost to the parties unless no party has established an inability to pay or, where one or more parties are unable to pay, another party has agreed voluntarily to pay the additional pro rata share(s). (CCP § 639((d)(6)(A).) Here, Plaintiff Ani Kachikyan declares she is unable to pay her pro rata share due to injuries allegedly sustained during the automobile collision at issue in this case.  Her husband, Kirakos Kesablyan, declares his income is barely enough to pay for daily necessities at this time.  Therefore, unless another party voluntarily agrees to pay for Plaintiffs’ pro rata share of costs, the Court is without authority to appoint a discovery referee. 

Accordingly, Intervenor PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Appointing a Discovery Referee is DENIED without prejudice.