Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV01333, Date: 2024-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01333    Hearing Date: December 4, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 4, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

(3) Motions to Compel Deposition

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Cassandra Catapia and Sergio Velasquez

Responding Party: Defendants 2471 Whittier, LLC, Ron Cholo Enterprise, LLC, David Kiralla, Alen Aivazian and Ryan Sweeney

T/R:     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ARE GRANTED.

THE WITNESSES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION WITHIN 45 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO MEET AND CONFER REGARDING DATES.

PLAINTIFFS’ 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.

BACKGROUND

On January 22, 2024, Plaintiffs Cassandra Catapia and Sergio Velasquez filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants 2471 Whittier, LLC, Ron Cholo Enterprise, LLC, David Kiralla, Alen Aivazian and Ryan Sweeney, asserting causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) premises liability; and (3) negligent hiring, training and supervision. Plaintiffs allege they were shot by a fellow patron at a bar owned and operated by Defendants.

ANALYSIS

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, 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(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(b)(2).) 

Plaintiffs move to compel the depositions of third-parties Drew Martinez, Javier Jamarilo and Victor Lares. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have refused to make these witnesses available for deposition. These deponents are not named Defendants in this action, and it is unclear from the papers how the deponents are related to this action or to the Defendants. In opposition, Defendants assert Plaintiffs failed to provide notice of the depositions to each party and that the notices seek documents that already have been produced in discovery.

The Court notes that the deponents have not been served with these motions nor does it appear they were served with the notices of deposition. The deponents are not named Defendants in this action, and it is unclear from either the moving or opposing papers how the deponents are related to this action or to the Defendants. If the deponents are not employees of Defendants, Plaintiffs cannot compel their depositions in this manner. However, the Court assumes that they are employees. If they are employees, Plaintiffs are entitled to take their depositions.

Assuming the deponents are employees of Defendants, the motions are GRANTED. The witnesses are ordered to appear within 45 days of notice of ruling. The deponents need not produce any documents previously produced by Defendants. The Court declines to award sanctions because the papers do not state how the deponents are related to this action and because Defendants’ objections to the production of documents are substantially justified.