Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV00503, Date: 2025-04-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV00503 Hearing Date: April 22, 2025 Dept: M
CASE NAME: JV Doe v. the
Regents of the University of California, et al.
CASE NO.: 23SMCV00503
MOTION: Motion
to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff
HEARING DATE: 4/22/2025
Legal
Standard
Service of a proper deposition notice obligates a party or “party-affiliated”
witness (officer, director, managing agent or employee of party) to attend and
testify, as well as produce any document, electronically stored information, or
tangible thing for inspection and copying. (CCP § 2025.280(a).) If, after service
of a deposition notice, a party deponent fails to appear, testify, or produce
documents or tangible things for inspection without having served a valid
objection under CCP § 2025.410, the deposing party may move for an order
compelling attendance, testimony, and production. (CCP § 2025.450(a).) The
motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, or, when a party
deponent fails to attend the deposition, the motion must also be accompanied by
a declaration stating that the moving party has contacted the party deponent to
inquire about the nonappearance. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).) If the deposition
notice included a request for production of documents, the motion to compel
attendance must also show good cause to justify the production. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(1).)
A motion to compel production of documents described in a
deposition notice must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. (CCP §
2025.450(b)(1).) In other words, the moving party must provide declarations
containing specific facts justifying inspection of the documents described in
the notice. Courts liberally construe good cause in favor of discovery where
facts show the documents are necessary for trial preparation.
The motion to compel must be “made no later than 60 days
after the completion of the record of the deposition.” (CCP § 2025.480(b).)
This time limit also applies to motions based on a deposition subpoena for
production of documents or a business records subpoena. The 60-day time limit
runs from the date objections are served because the deposition record is then
complete. (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164,
1192.)
Analysis
Defendant Deborah Lynn, M.D., moves
for an order compelling Plaintiff JV Doe to appear for a deposition within 14
days.
Defendant demonstrates that she has
been seeking Plaintiff’s deposition since 2023. On July 31, 2023, counsel for Defendant
noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for October 9, 2023. (Brandmeyer Decl., Ex. 2.) Plaintiff
objected to this deposition notice on the grounds that her counsel was
unavailable, but represented that her counsel would “work with defendants so
the deposition can be set for a mutually convenient date for all parties.” (Id.,
Ex. 3.) During meet and confer discussions, Plaintiff’s counsel informed
Defendant that Plaintiff had been diagnosed with a cerebral tumor necessitating
medical treatment and that Plaintiff was not able to proceed with a deposition
at that time. (Lee Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel stated she would advise when
Plaintiff would be undergoing surgery. (Id.) Approximately a year later, during
further meet and confer efforts in December 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel tentatively
offered Plaintiff to be deposed on February 19, 2025, and that they would
advise defense counsel as to Plaintiff’s ability to set her deposition closer
to the February 19, 2025, deposition date. (Id., ¶4; Brandmeyer Decl., Exs. 4-5.)
On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel served an objection to the deposition notice,
stating that Plaintiff had an MRI scheduled for February 19, 2025, and she was
not well enough to be deposed. (Id., Ex. 5-6.) During further meet and confer
efforts in February 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that Plaintiff had surgery
in mid-October 2024, and that they did not know when Plaintiff would be able to
be deposed. (Id., Ex. 7.)
Defendant has thus demonstrated
proper service of a deposition subpoena and Plaintiff’s refusal to be deposed
as noticed. Plaintiff has the burden of justifying her objection based on her
inability to be deposed due to health.
In opposition, Plaintiff requests a
protective order to take her deposition at an unspecified later date due to her
health. (CCP §§ 2019.020(b); 2025.420(b).) Plaintiff has not substantiated her
inability to be deposed due to her health. Critically, Plaintiff has submitted
no admissible evidence of her health condition, either through her own
declaration or of a treating physician. Plaintiff only cites vague hearsay from
her counsel. (Burrit Decl., ¶¶ 7-25.) Plaintiff therefore fails to show good
cause for a protective order.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. The deposition will go forward within 20
days.