Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV00971, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00971, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00971 Hearing Date: September 17, 2024 Dept: C

Maria Garcia vs Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al.

Case No.: 23NWCV00971

Hearing Date: September 17, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.

Tentative Ruling

I. Plaintiff Maria Garcia’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Ronnie Crockett is DENIED.

II. Plaintiff Maria Garcia’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is GRANTED.

III. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $1,500.00.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This lawsuit involves an accident in which Plaintiff, a pedestrian, lost consciousness while attempting to board a city bus. Maria Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) and Defendant Ronnie Crockett (“Crockett”) for General Negligence.

Plaintiff moves to compel the depositions of Crockett and LACMTA’s person most qualified, and responses to request for production of documents pursuant to CCP § 2025.450.

Legal Standard

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.010.) If the deponent named in a deposition notice is not a natural person, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.230.)“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action … without having served a valid objection … fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, … described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document … described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Discussion

On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of LACMTA’s person most qualified. (Benji Decl., ¶ 5.) The deposition was to take place on June 7, 2023. (Ibid.) On June 6, 2023, Defense Counsel responded to the Notice of Deposition via email and requested new deposition dates “at least two months from now.” (Id., ¶ 6.) The same day, Plaintiff’s Counsel requested Defendant’s availability for depositions, but received no dates in response. (Ibid.) Plaintiff sent another notice of deposition on December 6, 2023, with a proposed deposition date of January 26, 2024. (Id., ¶ 6.) On January 23, 2024, Defendant’s Counsel objected to Plaintiff’s notice of deposition, stating that Plaintiff scheduled the deposition without conferring with Defendant’s Counsel. (Id., ¶ 7.) On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel sent a meet and confer letter requesting deposition dates by February 12, 2024, but received no response. (Id., ¶ 8.) On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel requested deposition dates by March 15, 2024, but received no response. (Benji Decl, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff filed the instant motions on April 19, 2024.

Defendant Ronnie Crockett

Crockett argues that the motion to compel his deposition is unfounded because he already appeared for deposition on June 26, 2024. (Wyatt Decl., ¶ 4, Separate Statement in Opposition pg. 2:17-18.) Plaintiff does not contend otherwise.

In her Request for Production of Documents at Deposition, Plaintiff requested, “ALL DOCUMENTS DEFENDANT reviewed in preparation for this deposition.” Crockett responded, “Defendant Crockett will comply with this demand by producing any document which he reviewed in preparation for his deposition.” Crockett asserts he did not review any documents in preparation for his deposition, therefore there were no documents to produce. (Crockett Depo., pp. 25:13-26:4.)

The Court does not consider Plaintiff’s arguments pertaining to her other requests for discovery because they are not at issue here.

The motion to compel deposition of Defendant Ronne Crocket and Responses to Request for Production of Documents is DENIED.

LACMTA’s Person Most Qualified

LACMTA concedes that it has not responded to attempts to depose LACMTA’s person most knowledgeable. LACMTA contends that the communications were overlooked, and that Plaintiff should have done more to put them on notice of the pending deposition. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel acted diligently in attempting to schedule the deposition.

The motion to compel the deposition of LACMTA’s Person Most Qualified is GRANTED. The deposition shall occur within 45 days absent an agreement by the parties to a longer period.

If a motion to compel deposition is granted, sanctions are mandatory in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $6,810.00 (calculated at 9.0 hours at a rate of $750.00 per hour.) The Court finds the $750.00 hourly rate to be excessive and the motion to be non-complex. Sanctions are awarded in the reasonable sum of amount of $1,500.00 against Defendant LACMTA and Counsel, jointly and severally, payable within 60 days.