Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV13916, Date: 2023-12-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13916    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    Dept: 30

MARIA GRANADOS vs CITY OF INGLEWOOD, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s PMQ to Produce Documents at Deposition, and a PMQ’s Further Deposition is GRANTED. The documents and/or code compliant responses are to be produced within 20 days. Defendant is also ordered to produce a PMQ for deposition within 20 days in the event the requested documents are produced.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Legal Standard

Motion to Compel Documents at Deposition

CCP §¿2025.480(a) provides: 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).)

Motion to Compel Further Deposition

“[O]nce 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 . . . may take a subsequent deposition of that deponent.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610, subd. (a).) “[F]or good cause shown, the court may grant leave to take a subsequent deposition.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610, subd. (b).)

To demonstrate “good cause,” the moving party need only show, in addition to relevance (broadly construed), that his or her reasons for seeking discovery are within the declared purposes of the discovery act (i.e., that discovery will aid his or her case), and that discovery may be allowed without doing violence to equity, justice, or the inherent rights of the adversary. (Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Superior Court (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 840, 850.) In deciding a motion for discovery, the court's determination of what specific facts should be required to show “good cause,” necessarily depends on the facts and issues of the particular case. (Associated Brewers Distrib. Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 587.)

Discussion

Motion to Compel Document Production

Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company's Person Most Qualified (PMQ) and included 50 requests for production of documents. On January 18, 2024, during the deposition, Defendant’s PMQ, James Sanderson identified several documents that he reviewed in preparation for his deposition but those documents were not produced. Further, several documents requested in Plaintiff's Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents were never produced.

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks documents reflecting Defendant’s inspection policy(ies) and documents reflecting a contract between Defendant and any other party concerning maintenance of the location at issue, e.g., a franchise agreement between PBTC and City of Inglewood.

Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding the documents that were not produced and requested production of documents a week later. (Pennell Decl. ¶ 8; Ex. 5.) Plaintiff did not receive a response nor were any documents produced. (Pennell Decl. ¶ 9.)

In response, Defendant objected that the request is unduly burdensome and oppressive, and then stated it does not have any policies, procedures, or guidelines for inspection of the sidewalk at the “LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT.” In opposition, Defendant argues that it twice stated prior to Mr. Sanderson’s deposition in written discovery responses that it does not have any documents responsive to production category numbers 1, 2, and 20; (2) Mr. Sanderson made it clear during his deposition that Defendant does not have any policies, procedures, or guidelines for inspection of the sidewalk at the location where the subject incident occurred; and (3) Defendant has already produced the document that Mr. Sanderson reviewed prior to his deposition.

Plaintiff has shown good cause for this discovery. Plaintiff is trying to ascertain whether another entity (the City) had control over the vault. Further, Defendant’s inspections procedures would aid in litigating the cause of action for dangerous condition of public property.

Moreover, Defendant has not justified its objections. “[I]f a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on responding party to justify any objection.”¿ (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255, citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) The Court finds that the request is not unduly burdensome or oppressive. 

Next, the Court does not agree that Sanderson testified Defendant does not have any policies; rather, defense counsel stated that Sanderson stated he reviewed policy documents prior to the deposition.

Further, where a party is unable to comply with a demand for inspection, the party’s response should “affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand,” specify the reasons for the inability to comply, and “set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.) While Defendant states that it is unable to comply with these requests, Defendant has failed to make the required showing supporting its inability to comply. Accordingly, the motion to compel the documents is granted.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory under CCP §¿2025.480(j) unless the Court finds that one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. The Court finds that Defendant has acted with substantial justification. At this time, Defendant represents that it has no such documents, and thus, the Court cannot find that Defendant is deliberately failing to produce documents and so denies the request for sanctions.

Motion to Compel Further Depo

Plaintiff also seeks a second deposition of Defendant’s PMQ as documents were not previously produced.

Discovery statutes are to be liberally construed, and the purpose of the statutes is “to further the efficient, economical disposition of cases according to right and justice on the merits.” (Carlson v. Superior Court (1991) 56 Cal.2d 431, 437.) The trial court has “wide discretion in making such orders as may be necessary to protect parties and deponents from abuse or misuse of depositions.” (Ibid.)

The Court finds that there is good cause to grant Plaintiff leave to take a second deposition of Defendant’s PMQ in the event there are documents produced. However, if code-complaint responses are provided that there are no such documents, then the Court does not find there is good cause, as the deposition would be fruitless, as Defendant argues.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s PMQ to Produce Documents at Deposition, and a PMQ’s Further Deposition is GRANTED. The documents and/or code compliant responses are to be produced within 20 days. Defendant is also ordered to produce a PMQ for deposition within 20 days in the event the requested documents are produced.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.