Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV20019, Date: 2024-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20019    Hearing Date: February 21, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff Amanda Montano (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On July 27, 2022, Defendant filed an answer. 

On January 17, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s subsequent deposition to be heard on February 21, 2024.  On February 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition.  On February 13, 2024, Defendant filed a reply. 

Trial is currently scheduled for May 20, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Defendant asks the Court for leave to take Plaintiff's subsequent deposition. 

Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motion or limit the deposition. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610 provides in part: 

“(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 

Defendant asks for leave to take Plaintiff’s subsequent deposition because, after Plaintiff’s initial deposition on March 9, 2023, Plaintiff asserted on October 4, 2023 that she required a cervical surgery and, on October 6, 2023, Plaintiff had the surgery. 

In opposition, Plaintiff points to an entry in her doctor’s September 19, 2022 report, produced to Defendant, stating: "Indicated surgery C5-C6, C6-C7 ACDF [anterior cervical discectomy and fusion] with interbody reconstruction/fusion. Postoperative rigid collar immobilization, three months. No nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory medications, aspirin based product, three weeks before surgery and three months after surgery.... In the absence of surgical intervention, progression of her myelopathy is well supported in the peer reviewed spine literature."  

The doctor’s reference in September 2022 to an indicated surgery does not prevent the Court from finding good cause to grant Defendant leave to take Plaintiff's subsequent deposition.  Defendant was not required to assume that Plaintiff intended to proceed with the recommended surgery when she did not state such an intention at the March 9, 2023 deposition. 

The Court construes Defendant’s motion as a request for leave to take Plaintiff’s subsequent deposition.  The Court finds good cause and grants the request.  The subsequent deposition may not exceed two hours and Defendant may not repeat any questions asked at the March 9, 2023 deposition. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's motion for leave to take a subsequent deposition of Plaintiff Amanda Montano.  The subsequent deposition may not exceed two hours and Defendant may not repeat any questions asked at the March 9, 2023 deposition. 

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.