Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV38573, Date: 2024-11-07 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: 21STCV38573 Hearing Date: November 7, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 19, 2021, Plaintiff Maria Socorro Ortega (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc., McDonald’s USA, LLC, and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability.
On November 23, 2021, Defendant McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. filed an answer. On November 29, 2021, Defendant McDonald’s USA, LLC filed an answer.
On September 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc. (“Defendant”) to produce witnesses for deposition. The motion was set for hearing on November 7, 2024. On October 30, 2024, Defendant filed a late opposition. (The Court exercises its discretion to consider the late opposition.) Also on October 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 24, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendant to produce a person most qualified to testify about subjects listed in Plaintiff's deposition notice.
Defendant
asks the Court to deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 provides in part:
“(a) 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.
“(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:
* * *
“(g) (1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.
“(2) On motion of any other party who, in person or by attorney, attended at the time and place specified in the deposition notice in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of that party and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (a), (b), (g).)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on November 5, 2019, at 555 E. Hardy Street, in Inglewood, California, Plaintiff slipped and fell on liquid that was on the floor, suffering injuries.
Plaintiff admits that Defendant produced a witness, Maria Pedraza (“Pedraza”), to testify as its person most qualified about certain categories of information at a deposition on October 23, 2024. However, according to Plaintiff, Pedraza lacked knowledge about the subjects listed in the deposition notice and was not, in fact, Defendant’s person most qualified on these subjects. Therefore, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendant to produce another person most qualified.
In opposition, Defendant asserts that (1) Pedraza, the current general manager of the McDonald’s location where the accident occurred, had reviewed documents about the incident before her deposition and therefore was a person most qualified and (2) Defendant has agreed to produce Jose Miguel, the employee who mopped the floors on the date of the incident, as another person most qualified at a deposition on November 4, 2024.
Plaintiff’s reply does not mention Defendant’s agreement to produce Jose Miguel for a person most qualified deposition on November 4, 2024. In addition, Plaintiff has not informed the Court whether the deposition scheduled for November 4, 2024 took place.
Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant failed to produce a person most qualified about the subjects listed in the deposition notice. The Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Maria Socorro Ortega’s motion to compel Defendant McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc., to produce its person most qualified to testify about subjects listed in the deposition notice.
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.