Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV32700, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32700    Hearing Date: April 5, 2024    Dept: 30

KENNETH ALEXANDER vs SLATER WATERPROOFING, INC., et al.

TENTATIVE

The Court continues the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion until at least two weeks after the parties participate in an IDC. 

Judicial Assistant is directed to calendar the IDC.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Legal Standard

“If a deponent fails to answer any question . . . the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc, § 2025.480, subd. (a).) “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.” (Id., subd. (i).)

A motion to compel under Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.480, “…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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480(b).) The 60-day deadline is mandatory. (Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) Bader,¿156 Cal.App.4th 123, 136.)

Monetary sanctions are mandatory against an unsuccessful moving or opposing party unless they acted with substantial justification or imposition of sanctions would be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (j).)

To prevail, a party moving for an order compelling further responses to deposition questions must make “a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448 [analogous rule for document production].) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [analogous rule for document production].)

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to compel further deposition answers of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified (PMQ) after her deposition. They argue that the PMQ did not answer questions after Defendant’s counsel’s objections and instruction not to answer.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Answer Deposition Questions and Request for Sanctions is continued to allow the parties to participate in an informal discovery conference as required by the Eighth Amended Standing Order Re Personal Injury Procedures, Spring Street Courthouse, Pg. 7, ¶¶ 12-16.

In substance, this is a motion to compel further responses to deposition questions as Defendant objected to Plaintiff’s questions and precluded the PMQ from answering them.

However, motions that require a further response to discovery require that the parties first participate in an informal discovery conference with the court. The Court’s file does not reflect that the parties participated in an IDC with respect to the objections to questions made at Defendant’s PMQ’s deposition.

Accordingly, the Court continues the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion until after the parties participate in an IDC with the Court.