TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Tucker Carlson’s Motion to Quash Deposition Notice and Stay Deposition and for Protective Order, CCP §§ 2025.410; 2025.420 is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Steven E. Greer’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant Tucker Carlson to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendant Tucker Carlson (“Defendant”) moves the Court for an order quashing the Notice of Deposition dated September 19, 2023, to take Defendant’s deposition and staying the deposition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410, subdivision (c), and for a protective order that the deposition not be taken at this time pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, subdivision (b).

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410, subdivision (c), provides that in addition to serving a written objection to a notice of deposition, “a party may also move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice.” Such a “motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040,” and “[t]he taking of the deposition is stayed pending the determination of this motion.” (Ibid.) Further, “[b]efore, 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 this motion. (See Mot., Meuser Decl. ¶ 4.) The Court also notes that Defendant served a proper objection to the notice of deposition served by Plaintiff Steven E. Greer (“Plaintiff”). (See Mot., Meuser Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 3.) As to the basis for quashing and staying the deposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is improperly seeking a “do-over” of his previously litigated claims, which are barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, and justice requires that the deposition be stayed until the Court determines there are claims and issues properly before this Court.

While the Court previously sustained Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint, the demurrer was sustained with leave to amend, such that this case remains ongoing, and the Court will generally not stay discovery simply because a demurrer has been filed. (See Budget Finance Plan v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 794, 798.) However, “[o]nce it is recognized that the complaint shows that plaintiff has no claim, all concerned should be spared the expense of further proceedings.” (Silver v. City of Los Angeles (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 673, 674-675.) It follows that until a party files “a viable complaint stating at least one triable cause of action,” discovery obligations are “an unnecessary and burdensome additional expense to” the opposing party, and there is “no abuse of discretion in staying discovery.” (Terminals Equipment Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 234, 247.)

The Court finds it proper to enter an order staying the taking of Defendant’s deposition at this juncture. The Court will not repeat its demurrer ruling in full here, but in the minute order dated January 16, 2024, the Court concluded, in short, that both of Plaintiff’s claims appeared to be “barred by both the doctrine of res judicata, as Plaintiff is attempting to relitigate the same causes of action previously decided against him in favor of a party in privity with Defendant, and by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, as the same issues were litigated and decided against Plaintiff in the prior action, the decision was final and on the merits, and Defendant is in privity with Fox News from the prior action.” (Minute Order dated Jan. 16, 2024, p. 5.) The Court lacks a basis to conclude at this juncture that Plaintiff has any viable claims against Defendant, as he has not yet amended his pleading to cure the deficiencies identified in the Court’s prior order. Thus, the Court finds it proper to stay the taking of Defendant’s deposition until Plaintiff has stated a viable claim against Defendant.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that he is permitted to serve a deposition notice at any time after Defendant was served. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.210, subd. (b).) Indeed, Plaintiff was permitted to serve the deposition notice, but this statute does not render the considerations of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, subdivision (b), irrelevant, as that statute provides that a party may obtain a protective order to avoid undue burden and expense, which would occur if a deposition went forward while there are no viable claims stated against that party. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s deposition was addressed during the September 11, 2023, Case Management Conference, and the Court “did not object” (Opp’n, p. 2, ll. 15-16), but the Court does not “object” to depositions, as it does not litigate on behalf of any party, nor would the Court issue an advisory opinion as to whether the deposition was proper if no motion was pending before the Court about that deposition. Finally, insofar as Plaintiff argues that Defendant cites legal authority only applicable to nonparties, this is belied by the language of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410, subdivision (c), which provides that “a party may [] move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice,” Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, subdivision (a), which states that “[b]efore, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order,” and Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, subdivision (b), which provides that “[t]he 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.”

For these reasons, the Court finds it proper to stay the taking of Defendant’s deposition until “a viable complaint stating at least one triable cause of action” has been filed against Defendant. (See (Terminals Equipment Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at p. 247.) Accordingly, Defendant Tucker Carlson’s Motion to Quash Deposition Notice and Stay Deposition and for Protective Order, CCP §§ 2025.410; 2025.420 is GRANTED. Given that Defendant’s motion has been granted, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.