Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV01468, Date: 2025-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01468    Hearing Date: April 15, 2025    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff John Neal (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Los Angeles Unified School District (“District”), and Does 1-100 for dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835. 

On May 17, 2023, the District filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. 

On August 9, 2023, the City filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants District and Roes 1-20 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. 

On September 8, 2023, the District filed an answer to the City’s cross-complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants City and Moes 1-20 asserting three unnamed causes of action. 

On September 12, 2023, the City filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. 

On June 21, 2024, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference. 

On October 25, 2024, The Court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment and denied the District’s request to dismiss the City’s cross-complaint.  On December 19, 2024, the Court entered judgment for the District against Plaintiff. 

On November 5, 2024, the Court dismissed the City’s cross-complaint against the District without prejudice at the City’s request. 

On December 26, 2024, the Court dismissed the District’s cross-complaint without prejudice at the District’s request. 

On February 13, 2025, the City filed motions to compel the depositions of third party witnesses Chalontha Gordon and Sir Charles Goodwin.  The motions were set for hearing on April 4, 2025.  On March 21, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration in response to the motions.  The Court continued the hearing to April 15, 2025. 

Trial is currently scheduled for May 5, 2025. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

The City asks the Court to compel the depositions of third-party witnesses Chalontha Gordon and Sir Charles Goodwin.

  Plaintiff's counsel asks the Court to refrain from imposing sanctions.

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), (i), (j).) 

DISCUSSION 

On February 14, 2025, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s ex parte application and continued the trial from March 14, 2025 to May 5, 2025.  The Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s request to continue or reopen discovery because Plaintiff did not provide a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (a).  No party has filed a subsequent request to continue or reopen discovery.

In light of the Court’s February 14, 2025 order, discovery has been closed since February 13, 2025.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).)  The last day to hear discovery motions was February 27, 2025.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).)

 As a result, the Court cannot hear the City’s motions to compel the depositions of third-party witnesses.  (The Court's continuance of the hearing from April 4, 2025 to April 15, 2025 does not affect this result.) 

In addition, the City did not properly serve the motions under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motion to compel the depositions of third party witness Chalontha Gordon. 

The Court DENIES Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motion to compel the deposition of third party witness Sir Charles Goodwin.

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.