Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV33483, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33483    Hearing Date: April 10, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 10, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena

Moving Party: Defendant County of Los Angeles

Responding Party: Plaintiff Christine Jones

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS 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.

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”  (CCP § 1987.1(a).)

Defendant moves to quash a deposition subpoena directed at Ronda Jamgotchian. Jamgotchian is an attorney who represented Defendant and investigated Plaintiff’s complaints of employment discrimination shortly after Plaintiff first made a formal complaint in 2020. Defendant asserts that a deposition of Jamgotchian is unnecessary because Plaintiff and her counsel were present at the interviews conducted during the investigation, and because any other information sought from Jamgotchian is protected by the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges.

In opposition, Plaintiff represents that Jamgotchian will not be asked about legal advice provided to Defendants. Plaintiff asserts that the topics covered will seek facts relating to interviews with witnesses and will not include Jamgotchian’s impressions or legal opinions. Plaintiff argues that this testimony is necessary to show that Defendant’s investigation of Plaintiff’s claims was incomplete and inadequate.

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to depose Jamgotchian. The Court cannot conclude that the deposition is unnecessary or will consist only of irrelevant questions. If Defendant seeks to withhold documents, Defendant may serve a privilege log. If a deposition question infringes on the attorney-client or attorney work-product privileges, Defendant may object.

Defendant’s motion to quash is DENIED.