Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV31620, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31620    Hearing Date: October 24, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 24, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Deposition Answers

Moving Party: Defendant Federal Express Corporation

Responding Party: Plaintiff Michael Henry

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION IS GRANTED.

            THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE DENIED.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On August 19, 2020 Plaintiff Michael Henry filed a complaint alleging ten causes of action against Defendants Federal Express Corporation, Vuthy Khong, and Neal Tomita. This case arises from Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant Federal Express Corporation. Plaintiff alleges Defendant discriminated against him based on his age, race, and disability.

ANALYSIS

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (CCP § 2025.480(a).) The motion “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to answer certain questions at deposition. These questions include: what Plaintiff had reviewed with his attorney to prepare for deposition;  whether, as of March 31, 2020, Plaintiff had engaged an attorney; what medication Plaintiff took the night before his deposition that Plaintiff testified causes drowsiness; whether Plaintiff’s wife has a job;  whether Plaintiff’s wife contributes financially to the family; whether Plaintiff has had multiple bankruptcies in the past; whether Plaintiff has ever had a home foreclosed on; and whether Plaintiff has ever been subject to any collections actions.

Plaintiff’s counsel instructed Plaintiff not to answer these questions on the grounds of attorney-client privilege, privacy, and relevance. Defendant asserts that when Plaintiff retained counsel and what documents were reviewed before the depo are not communications between Plaintiff and counsel. Plaintiff asserts the questions necessarily implicate privileged communication. Whether Plaintiff is represented by counsel is not a confidential communication, nor is the date on which Plaintiff retained counsel. Similarly, Plaintiff must identify any non-privileged documents that Plaintiff reviewed prior to the deposition. Attorney-client discussions about those documents are privileged.

Defendant asserts the remaining questions are relevant to Plaintiff’s emotional distress damages. Defendant argues it is entitled to information relating to potential stressors, other than his termination, in Plaintiff’s life. As Plaintiff has put his mental state at issue, Defendant may obtain this information. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

The Court declines to award sanctions.