TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Holly Seeler’s Motion for Protective Order re Cross-Complainants’ [sic] Deposition is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The parties shall meet and confer within ten (10) days of entry of this order to determine a continued deposition date for the deposition of Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Erin Hughes to occur within sixty (60) days of entry of this order.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Holly Seeler’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,560, payable by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Erin Hughes and Hughes’ counsel to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Holly Seeler and Seeler’s counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Erin Hughes’ Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Holly Seeler to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Holly Seeler (“Seeler”) moves the Court for a protective order due to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Erin Hughes (“Hughes”)’s purported “combative, hostile, and unprofessional behavior during the attempt to take [Hughes'] deposition remotely on November 2, 2023” (Mot., p. 2, ll. 3-4), which included refusing to answer questions and personally insulting Seeler’s counsel, causing Seeler’s counsel to suspend the deposition, and similar behavior had occurred in a prior deposition with another attorney. (Mot., Dingilian Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. B.) After Seeler’s counsel suspended the deposition, Seeler's counsel noticed the resumption of Hughes’ deposition (Mot., Dingilian Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. E), while Hughes and her counsel have refused to meaningfully participate in the discovery process, such that Seeler seeks a protective order to require Hughes to appear for deposition with a court-appointed discovery referee present and paid for by Hughes alone. Hughes opposes the motion on the ground that there is no good cause for requiring Hughes to appear for another deposition, and Seeler failed to make a motion to quash the deposition notice of Hughes for her own deposition.

“Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (a).) “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, subd. (b).) The protective order may provide that a deposition not be taken at all, be taken at a different time or place, or other certain limitations. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).) At the outset, the Court finds the meet-and-confer efforts to be sufficient for the purposes of these motions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (a).) 

First, insofar as Hughes contends that Seeler failed to move to quash the unilateral notice of her continued deposition, Seeler provides evidence that she objected to the deposition (Reply, Ex. G), and Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410, subdivision (c), provides that a party may move for an order staying the taking of the deposition in addition to serving a written objection, which has occurred here, and Seeler has also provided evidence of meeting and conferring with Hughes before filing the present motion (Mot., Dingilian Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. F).

The Court has reviewed the subject deposition transcript and finds the discourse from Hughes to Seeler’s counsel to be disappointing, as Hughes lobbed unnecessary personal attacks at counsel while failing to respond to basic biographical questions. Nonetheless, the Court is not inclined to require the services of a discovery referee, as the Court trusts that Hughes and her counsel will discontinue the personal attacks and meaningfully participate in future deposition sessions. In so ruling, the Court notes that if a party engages in the misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose sanctions, including terminating, evidence, and monetary sanctions (see Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)), and disobeying a court order to provide discovery, such as respond to basic questions in a deposition and discontinue unnecessary personal attacks, is a misuse of the discovery process (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (g)), as is failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d)). It follows that should Hughes continue to verbally attack counsel, she faces the possibility of harsh sanctions which may preclude her ability to sufficiently mount a defense in this action.

As to Hughes’ deposition, there is good cause to allow opposing counsel opportunity to continue questioning Hughes, as she refused to answer basic questions in an obstructive manner. Accordingly, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Holly Seeler’s Motion for Protective Order re Cross-Complainants’ Deposition is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The parties shall meet and confer within ten (10) days of entry of this order to determine a continued deposition date for the deposition of Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Erin Hughes to occur within sixty (60) days of entry of this order.

Seeler moves the Court for an award of monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, subdivision (h), against Hughes and her counsel of record. The Court finds this statement in the notice of motion to sufficiently place Hughes and her counsel on notice that Seeler intended to seek sanctions against them, and the Court understands this request as applying to all counsel of record. The Court finds that sanctions are proper here, as Hughes and her counsel opposed the motion without substantial justification, but the Court reduces the award to consist of fees incurred for three hours preparing the motion, one hour preparing the reply, and one hour appearing at the hearing, at the rate of $300 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee, for a total award of $1,560. The Court declines to award costs incurred for the deposition, as the transcript makes clear that Seeler obtained at least some responses and relevant information, and she has also failed to sufficiently set forth the basis of her cost request. Accordingly, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Holly Seeler’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,560, payable by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Erin Hughes and Hughes’ counsel to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Holly Seeler and Seeler’s counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Erin Hughes’ Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.