Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: BC657639, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC657639 Hearing Date: May 16, 2023 Dept: 55
ALEXANDROV
v. DOES BC657639
Hearing Date: 5/16/23,
Dept. 55
#6: MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND TO INSPECT AND COPY TO DEFENDANTS, SET TWO AND
PERSONS MOST QUALIFIED DEPOSITIONS AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF THE SAME
DOCUMENTS.
Notice: Okay
Opposition
MP:
Plaintiffs.
RP:
Defendants, GF AIR SERVICES, LLC, MR.
CRANE, INC., INQUIPCO and INQUIPCO PACIFIC.
Summary
On 4/13/17, plaintiffs filed a Complaint.
On 12/11/17, plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint, alleging:
This action for negligence and strict liability arises
out of an incident that occurred on December 26, 2015. Oleg Alexandrov was
driving east on the 10 Freeway approaching Crenshaw Blvd and downtown Los
Angeles. Marianna Alexandrov was sitting in the passenger seat while their two
young grandchildren were passengers in the rear seats. Mr. Alexandrov was
driving a Toyota Ray 4 in the number two lane of travel. Mr. Alexandrov was
driving within the speed limit, in his lane of travel. Suddenly, a large metal
object from the freeway lanes ahead of his vehicle flew onto the hood of his
car, through his front windshield, skipped off the dashboard and steering
wheel, and struck Plaintiff in the skull, causing severe and permanent brain
injuries, which his wife witnessed.
The claims are:
1. NEGLIGENCE
2. NEGLIGENT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
3. NEGLIGENT
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
4. STRICT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
5. BREACH
OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES
6. LOSS
OF CONSORTIUM.
On 5/13/20, Plaintiff filed a partial dismissal
without prejudice, as to defendant THE CRANE GUYS, LLC, for the following
causes of action of the First Amended Complaint: Second cause of action for
Negligent Products Liability, fourth cause of action for Strict Products
Liability, and fifth cause of action for Breach of Express and Implied
Warranties.
Moving parties request the Court to
·
Compel defendants to produce verified
responses to Plaintiffs’ Demand to Inspect and Copy, Set Two, numbers 9 through
41.
·
Compel deposition attendance of the Person(s)
Most Qualified concerning the same documents and documents.\
The motion is made on
bases including the following:
·
Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiffs’
Demands to Inspect, and to produce a Person(s) Most Qualified deponent.
·
Moving parties met and conferred for six
months.
RP
Positions
Opposing parties request the Court to deny, on bases
including the following:
·
On 4/17/23,
Defendants served untimely responses, without objections, to the documents
demand, including a computer link to the documents.
·
The documents
search took longer than anticipated. A firm was retained to search through all
the emails of the company and the results produced many thousands of pages.
Also, an employee of defendants did a separate search of its server that also
resulted in thousands of pages of documents.
·
Defense counsel
requested plaintiffs’ counsel to advise as to whom he wished to depose, so that
available deposition dates could be provided.
Tentative
Ruling
The motion is ordered off calendar as to compelling
document production, and granted as to compelling deposition attendance.
Commencing at 10:00 a.m., on 5/31/23, defendants’
Person(s) Most Qualified shall attend a deposition at GREENE BROILLET &
WHEELER, LLP, 222 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 2100, El Segundo, CA 90245.
According to the opposition, document responses have
been served, such that the motion is moot.
However, a deposition date still has not been agreed
upon, and thus the Court sets one.
Where respondents served untimely discovery responses
after parties have filed motions to compel initial responses, courts have broad
discretion as to ruling, including: 1) denying the motion as moot, in whole or
part, where valid responses without objections have resolved the motion; 2) awarding requested sanctions; 3) allowing moving party to take the motion
off calendar; 4) considering the motion as voluntarily
narrowed in scope; 5) compelling responses without objection, where
no legally valid responses have been provided, as to some, or all,
interrogatories; 6) treating the motion as one to compel further responses, and
ruling accordingly, with, or without, a separate statement; 7) ordering the parties to meet and
confer; 8) ordering moving party to file a separate
statement; or, 9) ordering the motion
off calendar while requiring the propounding party to file a motion to compel
further responses. Sinaiko Healthcare
Consulting, Inc., v. Klugman (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.
A motion lies to compel deposition attendance and
document production, after service of a deposition notice, where a deponent
fails to appear at, or proceed with, a deposition, without having served a
valid objection under Section 2025.410.
CCP §2025.450(a). No meet and
confer is required to compel initial deposition attendance, but instead there
must be a declaration showing that moving party inquired about the
nonappearance. CCP §2025.450(b)(2). "Implicit in the requirement that
counsel contact the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance is a
requirement that counsel listen to the reasons offered and make a good faith
attempt to resolve the issue," including by rescheduling. Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Serv.
(2001) 86 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1124. See also L.A.S.C.L.R. 3.26 (“guidelines
adopted by the Los Angeles County Bar Association are adopted as civility in
litigation recommendations….”).
“Code of Civil Procedure section 2025, subdivision
(d)(6), provides that if a deposition notice describes matters on which
examination is requested, ‘the deponent shall designate and produce at the
deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or
agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to
the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the
deponent.’" Maldonado v. Sup. Ct.
(2002) 94 Cal. App. 4th 1390, 1395-98.
*IF BOTH PARTIES WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE
RULING, PLEASE CALL 213-633-0655.