Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV05165, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05165    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 16, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Deposition

Moving Party: Plaintiff Sarah Flores

Responding Party: Defendant FCA US LLC

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF JAMES SHERIDAN IS DENIED.

THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO MEET AND CONFER REGARDING A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATE AND SCOPE OF DEFENDANT’S PMK DEPOSITION.

            PLAINTIFF 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.

“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).) 

            Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of attorney James A. Sheridan, general counsel for Defendant FCA. Plaintiff asserts Sheridan verified Defendant’s discovery response and therefore must be deposed. Plaintiff also represents Defendant has refused to provide a person most knowledgeable for deposition. In opposition, Defendant asserts that it has now agreed to provide a PMK for deposition and a deposition of Sheridan would infringe on attorney-client privilege.

            The Court will not order a deposition of Sheridan. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a mutually agreeable date and scope of Defendant’s PMK deposition.