Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV19033, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV19033 Hearing Date: January 26, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff Glenn Handsor (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Southern California Gas Company (“Gas Co.”), Jesus Garcia (“Garcia”), and Does 1-25 for negligence, negligent entrustment, and negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.
On November 22, 2022, Defendants Gas Co. and Garcia (“Defendants”) filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Plaintiff and Roes 1-50 for equitable indemnity, apportionment and contribution, and declaratory relief.
On December 22, 2022, Defendants filed a first amended cross-complaint against Roes 1-50 for equitable indemnity, apportionment and contribution, and declaratory relief.
On September 27, 2023, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to compel non-party Maria Delsocorro Tello (“Tello”) to appear at a deposition because Defendants had not properly served a deposition subpoena on her.
On November 20, 2023, Gas Co. filed a motion to compel Tello’s compliance with a deposition subpoena, to be heard on January 26, 2024. On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On January 19, 2024, Gas Co. filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 6, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Gas Co. requests that the Court order Tello to appear for a deposition.
Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.) A deposition subpoena may command the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.) The Court may order a third party to comply with a deposition subpoena upon any terms or condition that the court declares. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480 provides in part:
“(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.
“(b) This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(c) Notice of this motion shall be given to all parties and to the deponent either orally at the examination, or by subsequent service in writing. If the notice of the motion is given orally, the deposition officer shall direct the deponent to attend a session of the court at the time specified in the notice.
* * *
“(i) If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition.
“(j) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480,
subds. (a), (b), (c), (h), (i), (j).)
DISCUSSION
Gas Co. asks the Court to compel Tello’s attendance at a deposition because she failed to appear at a properly noticed deposition on October 30, 2023.
Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing Gas Co. has not shown that Tello’s testimony is relevant because Gas Co. has not established that Tello was at the scene of the accident.
The argument is meritless. Parties conduct discovery because they do not know all the facts and need to investigate. Gas Co. has a right to follow up on information which suggests that Tello may have witnessed the accident. The Court sees no reason to foreclose this discovery.
Plaintiff also argues that Gas Co. has not engaged in sufficient meet and confer efforts with Tello. Gas Co. has submitted a declaration from counsel stating that, in an attempt to meet and confer with Tello, Gas Co. provided Tello with a letter in English and Spanish explaining the deposition process and inviting her to contact counsel if the deposition date and time did not work for her. Tello did not contact Gas Co.’s counsel. Under the circumstances, the meet and confer effort was sufficient.
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Southern California Gas Company to compel Maria Delsocorro Tello to attend a deposition. The Court orders Maria Delsocorro Tello to appear for a deposition within 30 days of the hearing on this motion. Southern California Gas Company is to make all necessary arrangements to take Maria Delsocorro Tello’s deposition by this deadline.
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.