Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV13795, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 20STCV13795 Hearing Date: December 27, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On April 8, 2020, Plaintiff Bennett Falaughn (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) and Does 1-250 for “public entity liable for tort of public employee in course and scope of public employment [Govt. Code §§815.2(a), 820(a)].”
On June 5, 2020, Metro filed an answer. On June 12, 2020, Metro filed an amended answer.
On October 14, 2020, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Javier Orozco as Doe 1 (“Orozco”). On November 24, 2020, Orozco filed an answer.
On November 17, 2023, Metro filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s subsequent deposition. On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On December 19, 2023, Metro filed a reply.
Trial is scheduled for April 17, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Metro requests that the Court order Plaintiff to attend a second deposition.
Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620 provides:
“(a) Once any party has taken the deposition of any natural person, including that of a party to the action, neither the party who gave, nor any other party who has been served with a deposition notice pursuant to Section 2025.240 may take a subsequent deposition of that deponent.
“(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), for good cause shown, the court may grant leave to take a subsequent deposition, and the parties, with the consent of any deponent who is not a party, may stipulate that a subsequent deposition be taken.
“(c) This section does not preclude taking one subsequent deposition of a natural person who has previously been examined under either or both of the following circumstances:
“(1) The person was examined as a result of that person’s designation to testify on behalf of an organization under Section 2025.230.
“(2) The person was examined pursuant to a court order under Section 485.230, for the limited purpose of discovering pursuant to Section 485.230 the identity, location, and value of property in which the deponent has an interest.
“(d) This section does not authorize the taking of more than one subsequent deposition for the limited purpose of Section 485.230.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610.)
DISCUSSION
Metro requests leave to take Plaintiff’s second deposition. According to Metro, during Plaintiff’s previous deposition on January 8, 2021, Plaintiff did not mention any plan to try a spinal cord stimulator or to seek additional surgeries. On August 1, 2023, Plaintiff disclosed for the first time that he “trialed and installed a spinal cord stimulator as a result of the subject accident.” (Motion p. 2.) Plaintiff also disclosed that he is alleging over $60,000.00 in medical expenses relating to the spinal cord stimulator and $753,969.46 in future medical specials. Metro argues that it needs to conduct a second session of Plaintiff’s deposition to obtain information about the reasonableness and necessity of the trial and installation of the spinal cord stimulator, causation, and Plaintiff’s need for future treatment.
Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing (1) Metro’s delay of more than three months in filing the motion shows that it does not need the additional deposition, (2) Metro intentionally took Plaintiff’s deposition early in the case even though it knew that Plaintiff was still receiving medical care and the Court should not allow Metro to take a second deposition before trial, and (3) Metro did not attempt to obtain the information it is seeking by less intrusive means such as special interrogatories.
In its reply, Metro asserts that immediately after it learned on August 1, 2023 about Plaintiff’s installation of a spinal cord stimulator, Metro propounded additional discovery to Plaintiff but Plaintiff declined to respond because Metro served the discovery after the discovery cut-off date. Later, on September 26, 2023, the Court reopened discovery. The same day, Metro and Plaintiff agreed that Plaintiff would provide responses to Metro’s discovery within 30 days. Plaintiff has not provided the discovery responses. (Ashour Dec. ¶¶ 2-5.)
The Court finds good cause and grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion to compel a second deposition of Plaintiff Bennett Falaughn. The deposition is to take place within 30 days of the hearing on this motion. The second deposition will not exceed seven hours minus the time spent taking Plaintiff’s first deposition.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Bennett Falaughn’s request for sanctions.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.