Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV00738, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00738    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Stephanie Marie Wickstrom, et al.,

 

 

 

Plaintiffs,

 

Case No.:

 

 

22STCV00738

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

Southern California Edison Company,

 

 

 

Defendant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: May 18, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Protective Order, or alternatively, to Appoint Discovery Referee

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Stephanie Marie Wickstrom, et al.

Responding Party: Defendant Southern California Edison Company

 

T/R:     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO APPOINT DISCOVERY REFEREE IS GRANTED.

 

THE PARTIES ARE EACH ORDERED TO PROVIDE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS A LIST OF THREE DISCOVERY REFEREES. THE COURT WILL APPOINT A REFEREE FROM THESE LISTS TO OVERSEE DEPOSITIONS.

 

THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE DENIED.

 

            PLAINTIFFS 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.

“The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.”  (CCP § 2031.060(b).)   

 

Plaintiffs move for a protective order, or alternatively to appoint a discovery referee. Plaintiffs assert the parties cannot agree on deposition schedules or the scope of depositions. Plaintiffs also represent that Defendant’s counsel has repeatedly obstructed deposition testimony by objecting improperly and instructing the deponent not to answer, by testifying for the deponent and coaching the deponent.

In opposition, Defendant asserts Plaintiffs’ counsel has been obstructing discovery by noticing too many depositions and for asking questions outside the scope of those notices.

 

            It is clear from the parties’ vastly different versions of events that they are not capable of conducting depositions without the assistance of a third-party mediator. The Court will appoint a discovery referee. The cost of the referee shall be shared equally among the parties.

 

The Court declines to award sanctions to either party.