Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV22658, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV22658 Hearing Date: January 21, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff Catalina Orellana (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Elvira’s Wedding Chapel (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability.
On November 17, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
On April 12, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s request to file a first amended answer based on the parties’ stipulation.
On November 22, 2024, the Court denied Defendant’s ex parte application for a protective order concerning the deposition of Arnoldo Dheming.
On November 25, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for a protective order concerning the deposition of Arnoldo Dheming (“Dheming”). The motion was set for hearing on December 26, 2024. On December 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On December 18, 2024, Defendant filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to January 21, 2025.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 18, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendant asks the Court (1) to limit the scope of further sessions of Dheming’s depositions by excluding unrelated “confidential” information and (2) to bar Plaintiff’s daughter, Janet Orellana, from attending future depositions.
Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Protective order
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:
* * *
* * *
(10) That the scope of the examination be limited to certain matters.
* * *
(13) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only to specified persons or only in a specified way.
* * *
(h) 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 for a protective order, 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., § 2025.420, subds. (a), (b)(5), (b)(9), (b)(10), (b)(12), (b)(13), (g), (h).)
B. Nonparty appearance at deposition
Absent a protective order, nonparties may attend a deposition. (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2024) ¶ 8:698, p. 8E-107 (Cal. Practice Guide).) For good cause shown, the Court may exclude designated persons from attending a deposition. (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b)(12).)
“Sometimes, deponents invite family members or staff for psychological support or to help refresh their memory during recesses. Sometimes, the lawyer conducting the deposition will invite the press or nonparties whose presence makes the deponent feel uncomfortable." (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:699, p. 8E-107.) “Unless counsel resolve the matter amicably, one side or the other will suspend the deposition and seek a protective order [citation]. A showing will have to be made that allowing such nonparties to attend would cause ‘unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.’ ” (Id., ¶ 8:699, p. 8E-108, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b), emphasis omitted.)
DISCUSSION
On October 5, 2024, Plaintiff served a deposition notice for Defendant’s person most qualified specifying that the deposition, scheduled for October 18, 2024, would address the following categories of information:
· “The person who last inspected the LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT (as used herein ‘LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT’ shall refer to the area where plaintiff fell at the SUBJECT PROPERTY) prior to the INCIDENT (as used herein the term ‘INCIDENT’ . . . shall include the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged slip and fall)”
· “The person who inspected the LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT immediately after the INCIDENT.”
· “The person most qualified of conducting maintenance of LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT prior to the INCIDENT.”
· “The person most qualified of conducting maintenance of LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT after the INCIDENT.”
· “The person most qualified of reporting maintenance logs for the LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT after the INCIDENT.”
· “The employee most qualified concerning the policies, procedures and guidelines for maintaining the LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT in a condition safe for pedestrians and/or public on the date of the INCIDENT.”
· “The person most qualified for cleanliness of the LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT before the INCIDENT.” (Exh. B, Davila dec.)
The deposition took place on October 25, 2024. Defendant produced Arnoldo Dheming (“Dheming”), who owns the wedding chapel where Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell, to be deposed. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s counsel asked Dheming improper questions about Escritorio Publico, Dheming's other business, and allowed Plaintiff’s daughter, Janet Orellana (“Janet Orellana”), to be present at the deposition over Defendant’s counsel’s objections.
Counsel intend to schedule further sessions of Dheming's deposition in his individual capacity and as Defendant's person most qualified. Based on the questions asked and the presence of Janet Orellana at the initial deposition, Defendant contends that a protective order is needed to protect Dheming from improper questioning and the violation of his privacy rights.
The Court has considered the parties’ papers and grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s motion as follows:
The Court denies Defendant’s motion for a protective order with respect to Plaintiff’s deposition of Dheming in his individual capacity. Defendant has not provided a copy of the deposition notice for the deposition of Dheming in his individual capacity and the Court therefore cannot determine the scope of the deposition which Plaintiff is seeking.
The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order with respect to Plaintiff’s deposition of Dheming in his capacity as Defendant’s person most qualified. The Court orders that Plaintiff may question Dheming about both businesses (Elvira’s Wedding Chapel and Escritorio Publico) which shared the restroom at the premises where Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell, but only within the scope of the questions listed in the deposition notice.
The Court finds that Defendant has not carried its burden of showing that Janet Orellana’s presence at the deposition causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. The Court therefore denies Defendant’s request to exclude Janet Orellana from the depositions.
The Court denies Plaintiff's request for sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant Elvira’s Wedding Chapel’s motion for a protective order.
The Court DENIES Defendant Elvira’s Wedding Chapel’s motion for a protective order with respect to Plaintiff Catalina Orellana’s deposition of Arnoldo Dheming in his individual capacity.
The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff Catalina Orellana may depose Arnoldo Dheming in his capacity as Defendant Elvira’s Wedding Chapel’s person most qualified about both businesses (Elvira’s Wedding Chapel and Escritorio Publico) which shared the restroom at the premises where Plaintiff Catalina Orellana allegedly slipped and fell, but only within the scope of the questions listed in the deposition notice.
The Court also orders that non-party Janet Orellana may attend Arnoldo Dheming’s depositions.
The Court denies Plaintiff Catalina Orellana's request for sanctions.
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.