Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2018-01016033, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)

The Motion by Plaintiffs E.N. and I.N. to compel the deposition of the person most qualified (“PMQ”) of Defendant County of Orange Department of Social Services (“Defendant”) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth below.

With respect to PMQ depositions, Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2025.230 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.”

CCP section 2025.450(a) provides that when a party deponent is served with a deposition notice and, without having served a valid objection under CCP section 2025.410, fails to appear for deposition the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony at deposition. 

The motion should “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 450(b)(1).) 

Plaintiffs move to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ.  Defendant has taken the position that because it has recently served supplemental discovery responses in which it admitted for the first time that the 2011 allegation of sexual abuse was not cross-reported to law enforcement, liability is established and the PMQ deposition is not necessary.  In short, Defendant contends the testimony is inadmissible as it is not relevant to the issues.

Admissibility at trial is not the test for permissible discovery. Information, unless privileged, is discoverable when it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. (See, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; Moore v. Mercer (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 424, 447; Seahaus La Jolla Owners Ass’n v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 754, 767 (scope of discovery extends to any information that might reasonably lead to other evidence that would be admissible at trial).

Here, the Court finds Plaintiffs have shown that the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Defendant is continuing to raise affirmative defenses, including contributory negligence of Plaintiffs and other third parties.  Also, evidence of whether Defendant was aware of past complaints or investigations may be relevant to the remaining disputed issues.

As a result, the Motion is granted to the extent Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s PMQ to appear for deposition.

The Motion is denied with respect to the document demands.

CCP section 2025.450(b)(1) provides that a motion to compel the production of documents at a deposition requires “specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document.”

Plaintiffs have not shown good cause to compel the production of documents in response to their 75 requests. (See Weitz Decl., Plaintiffs’ Ex. 9.)

Plaintiffs argue in Reply that the Weitz Declaration provides the factual support required to compel production of documents under CCP section 2025.450(b)(1).  The Court disagrees; the Weitz Declaration only recounts the procedural history leading to this motion.  Nowhere does Plaintiff set forth specific facts pertaining to and showing good cause justifying these 75 document demands. 

Accordingly, the Court orders Defendant to produce its PMQ for deposition within 30 days of this ruling. 

The Court denies the request for an order compelling Defendant to produce documents in response to Plaintiffs’ 75 requests for production of documents that were served concurrently with the deposition notice.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.