Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC00397, Date: 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC00397    Hearing Date: March 6, 2023    Dept: 26

Nguyen v. De Rojo, et al.

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

(CCP § 2025.420)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Carol Linh Nugyen’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS. THE REQUEST FOR A REMOTE/VIDEO DEPOSITION IS DENIED, BUT THE DEPOSITION MUST BE HELD AT A LOCATION IN GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA.

DEFENDANT JUAN CAMILO SANTA CRUZ OSORIO’S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff Carol Linh Nguyen (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Monica Osorio De Rojo (“Defendant De Rojo”) and Juan Camilo Santa Cruz Osorio (“Defendant Osorio”). Defendants filed an Answer on June 23, 2022.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Protective Order on November 17, 2022. Defendant Osorio filed an opposition on February 21, 2023 and Plaintiff replied on February 27, 2023.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks a protective order from appearing for deposition in person at a location that would require considerable travel, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, subdivision (b), which provides: “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.” (Code Civ. Pro., § 2025.420, subd. (b).) A meet and confer declaration is required to support the Motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (a).)

The Motion argues that Defendant Osorio’s insistence on an in-person deposition for Plaintiff in either Riverside or Santa Ana, California, is harassing and would cause her unnecessary expense. Upon receipt of a deposition notice for an in-person deposition to be held on November 21, 2022 in Riverside, California, the attorneys met and conferred regarding manner of taking the deposition and the location. (Opp., Beck Decl., Exhs. B-D; Motion, Lee Decl., ¶¶12-16 and Exhs. A-B.) Defense counsel proposed taking the deposition in Santa Ana, California, which Plaintiff did not accept because it would be an 84-mile round-trip. (Motion, Lee Decl., ¶16.) Plaintiff’s counsel offered an in-person deposition in Glendale, California, or alternatively, a remote deposition. (Id. at Exh. B.) Defense counsel would not accept either option. (Opp., Beck Decl., Exh. D.) Based on these discussions, the meet and confer requirement has been satisfied.

The Court agrees that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a protective order is necessary regarding an in-person deposition due to COVID-19 concerns. As Defendant Osorio points out, there are certain advantages to in-person depositions to assess credibility and as an indication of the trial preparation. The Motion does not indicate that Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel has specific health concerns related to COVID-19. (See Motion, Lee Decl.) Broad concerns about exposure to COVID-19 can be managed through the use of alternative procedures, such as masking and social distancing. Plaintiff is also willing to an in-person deposition at a location closer to her residence, which indicates that the COVID-19 concern is not as serious and can be effectively managed. Similarly, Defendant Osorio has not shown that an in-person deposition in Glendale, as proposed by Plaintiff, is problematic. (Opp., Exh. D.) Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff may be deposed in-person, but the deposition is to take place in Glendale, California.

Defendant Osorio seeks sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, subdivision (h), which requires the Court to sanction any party “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, subd. (h).) In light of the Motion partially succeeding as to the location of the deposition, Defendant Osorio’s request for sanctions in the opposition is denied.

Finally, the Court disregards both parties’ attempts to rely on tentative rulings from Los Angeles Superior Court judges as supporting law for their positions. Unpublished opinions may not be cited or relied upon by a court or a party in any action or proceeding. (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1133 n. 1 [citing Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115].)

Conclusion

Plaintiff Carol Linh Nugyen’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS. THE REQUEST FOR A REMOTE/VIDEO DEPOSITION IS DENIED, BUT THE DEPOSITION IS TO BE HELD AT A LOCATION IN GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA.

DEFENDANT JUAN CAMILO SANTA CRUZ OSORIO’S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.