TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation’s Motion to Compel Cross-Defendant to Appear and Answer Questions Pursuant to a Deposition Subpoena is GRANTED. Within ten (10) days, Defendant The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation and Cross-Defendant Mario Gonzalez shall meet and confer about a further deposition relating to the information sought in this motion.

Defendant The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendant The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) moves the Court for an order compelling Cross-Defendant Mario Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) to appear for his deposition and answer questions in accordance with the deposition notices served on Gonzalez. Caltrans deposed Gonzalez on November 22, 2024, but Gonzalez was instructed by counsel not to respond to several inquiries, and meet-and-confer efforts to obtain this information have not yielded results.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, subdivision (a), provides that where “a deponent fails to answer any question” in a deposition, “the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer . . . .” “If the court determines that the answer . . . sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given . . . on the resumption of the deposition.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (i).)

The questions at issue relate to Gonzalez’s social media accounts, email addresses, and phone numbers. Gonzalez’s counsel objected to these inquiries on privacy grounds. Contact information for witnesses is generally discoverable. (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250.) The right to discovery is not absolute, though, where issues of privacy are involved, so the Court generally balances the need for that discovery against the weight of the right to privacy. (Ibid.) The Court finds there is a basis to allow Caltrans access to the information sought, as it may lead to discoverable information such as communication about the subject accident. Accordingly, Defendant The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation’s Motion to Compel Cross-Defendant to Appear and Answer Questions Pursuant to a Deposition Subpoena is GRANTED. Within ten (10) days, Defendant The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation and Cross-Defendant Mario Gonzalez shall meet and confer about a further deposition relating to the information sought in this motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.280, subdivision (j), provides that “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Gonzalez has not opposed the present motion, and while the Court has ruled in Caltrans’ favor here, the objection on privacy grounds was not baseless, such that Defendant The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.