TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Ategrity Specialty Insurance Company and Axis Surplus Insurance Company’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable of Goldrich Kest, LLC and Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff Goldrich Kest, LLC’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendants Ategrity Specialty Insurance Company and Axis Surplus Insurance Company to give notice.

REASONING

Defendants Ategrity Specialty Insurance Company and Axis Surplus Insurance Company (“Defendants”) moves the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff Goldrich Kest, LLC (“Plaintiff”) to designate and produce a Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) regarding nine topics identified in the motion relating to Plaintiff’s allegations in this action. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to designate and produce a PMK to testify as to those matters, and Plaintiff’s objections are not valid. Plaintiff opposes the motion on the ground that it is not required to produce a PMK to testify as to legal contentions, and it is unduly burdensome to require a party to testify about its legal contentions, as that information must be sought through the use of contention interrogatories.

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) An oral deposition of a party may be taken after service of a deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.210, 2025.220.) “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing 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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

The Court has reviewed the nine topics identified in Defendants’ motion and finds that the topics identified in the notice of deposition go beyond the scope of permitted deposition testimony pursuant to Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (Rifkind), which makes it improper to ask a fact witness at deposition to identify facts, witnesses, and documents supporting legal contentions in the pleadings. In Rifkind, the Second District Court of Appeal justified this rule on the ground that “legal contention questions require the party interrogated to make a law-to-fact application that is beyond the competence of most lay persons.” (Id. at p. 1262.) While Defendants seek to distinguish Rifkind by noting that the party in that case was an individual party, not a PMK, the Court is not convinced that the situation presented here compels a different conclusion because law-to-fact application is beyond the competence of most PMKs. Defendants are not without recourse because they can seek this information through use of written interrogatories, and Plaintiff has sought to find a way to meaningfully provide this information outside the scope of a deposition, but Defendants have not engaged in a discussion. It is the Court’s position that Rifkind supports disallowing the deposition testimony sought by Defendants, including when the deponent is a PMK. For that reason, Defendants Ategrity Specialty Insurance Company and Axis Surplus Insurance Company’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable of Goldrich Kest, LLC and Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against Defendants for bringing this motion. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are not warranted here, as Defendants’ interpretation of Rifkind v. Superior Court, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at page 1255, was not an unreasonable one. Accordingly, Plaintiff Goldrich Kest, LLC’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.