Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV10827, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV10827 Hearing Date: September 26, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 12, 2023, Plaintiff Fe R. Molina (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort.
On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendant and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort.
On May 6, 2024, Defendant filed an answer.
On August 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order. The motion was set for hearing on September 26, 2024. On September 13, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition. On September 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 7, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a protective order permitting Plaintiff to attend her deposition remotely.
Defendant asks the Court to deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420 provides in part:
“(a) Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:
* * *
““(5) That the deposition be taken only on certain specified terms and conditions. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subds. (a), (b)(5).)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asks the Court to allow her to attend her deposition remotely to reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19. Plaintiff argues that she is 83 or 84 years old and as a result is particularly vulnerable to the potential harm resulting from a COVID infection. According to Plaintiff, Defendant will suffer no prejudice if Plaintiff appears remotely rather than in person for her deposition.
Plaintiff also contends that Defendant’s amended deposition notice was untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.270, subdivision (a), which provides that “[a]n oral deposition shall be scheduled for a date at least 10 days after service of the deposition notice.” (See L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2024) ¶ 8:492, p. 8E-26 (Cal. Practice Guide) [longer notice periods required for service by mail, overnight delivery, fax, and electronic mail].)
In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has cited no legal authority supporting her request for a remote deposition. Defendant also contends that it will suffer prejudice if the deposition takes place remotely.
The Court has reviewed the original and amended deposition notices and finds that Defendant timely served the amended deposition notice.
The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order. Defendant does not contest Plaintiff’s assertion that she is 83 or 84 years old and could suffer severe consequences if she contracts COVID-19. Although Defendant argues that “no legal authority exists allowing courts to order remote depositions,” Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420 authorizes the Court, “for good cause shown,” to “make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).) The Court may make orders to carry out these objectives that are “not limited to” the directions listed in the statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b); see Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b)(5) [court may order “[t]hat the deposition be taken only on certain specified terms and conditions”].)
It is true that a remote deposition has drawbacks compared to an in-person deposition. (See Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:650, p. 8E-92.) The Court therefore makes the following suggestions for counsel to consider before the remote deposition takes place:
· Consider entering into a stipulation regarding, for example, the technology to be used, limitations on any “off-line” communications, procedures for attorney-client communications, who will do the audio and video recording, and whether there should be a second camera in the room with the deponent to ensure no inappropriate contact is being made. (See Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:650, p. 8E-93.)
· Consider agreeing on how to handle documents. (See Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:650, p. 8E-93.)
· Consider pre-marking and circulating to all participants most documents and oversized exhibits. (See Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:650, p. 8E-93.)
· Consider ensuring that the witness is not using notes or, if the witness is using notes, that they are shared with all parties. (See Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:650, p. 8E-93.)
· Consider testing all equipment and Internet connectivity before the deposition begins. (See Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:650, p. 8E-93.)
· Consider making sure that counsel are not inadvertently sharing unintended documents on their technology. (See Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:650, p. 8E-93.)
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Fe R. Molina’s motion for a protective order and orders that Plaintiff may attend her deposition remotely.
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.