Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV04275, Date: 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04275    Hearing Date: November 21, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: November 21, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Compel Deposition

Moving Party: Defendants Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Todd Michael Friedman, Esq., and Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Ebony Williams

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

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 July 30, 2021, Plaintiff Ebony Williams filed the operative second amended complaint against Defendants Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Todd Michael Friedman, Esq., and Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq., asserting causes of action for (1) professional negligence; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code 17200.

This action arises from claims relating to a prior action, in which Defendants represented Plaintiff in an employment discrimination claim against her former employer, Mercury Insurance. On April 3, 2019, Defendants filed a lawsuit on Plaintiff’s behalf against Mercury Insurance, entitled Ebony Williams v. Mercury Insurance, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 19STCV11492. That matter asserted causes of action for (1) Race Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation in Employment [California Government Code § 12940 et seq.]; and (2) Retaliation and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (the “Underlying Action”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s negligence forced Plaintiff to settle the Underlying Action against Mercury Insurance for “pennies on the dollar.”

ANALYSIS

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action … without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”  (CCP § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

The motion must be accompanied by a good faith meet and confer declaration under section 2016.040 or, “when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”  (CCP § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)

Defendants move for an order compelling Plaintiff to complete her deposition. Defendants assert Plaintiff’s counsel unilaterally and abruptly ended Plaintiff’s deposition an hour early, claiming deposing counsel’s questioning and behavior were racist. Defendants deny these claims. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that she, her counsel, and the court reporter perceived counsel’s tone and manner of questioning as racist. Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the motion.

Defendants are entitled to complete Plaintiff’s deposition. The Court expects all counsel and parties will comply with all applicable rules and will treat each other with courtesy and respect. The Court declines to award sanctions.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The request for sanctions is DENIED.