Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV18111, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV18111    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Marquan Martin sued defendants King Valet Parking, Inc. (“King”), SKWS Enterprises, Inc. (“SKWS”), Hao Nguyen (“Nguyen”), and Julio Nzolameso (“Nzolameso”) based on a vehicle-to-pedestrian collision.  Plaintiff alleges Nzolameso struck Plaintiff in a parking lot adjacent to a night club owned by SKWS and managed by King.  King filed a cross-complaint against Nguyen and Nzolameso for equitable indemnity and declaratory relief on September 18, 2019.

            King seeks leave to take the deposition of Nzolameso, who is incarcerated at Sierra Conservation Center.  The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

Per Penal Code section 2623, an order for a prisoner’s examination in the prison by deposition may be made by the court in which the action or special proceeding is pending only “on the motion of a party, upon affidavit showing the nature of the action or proceeding, the testimony expected from the witness, and its materiality.”  (Pen. Code, § 2623.)  “The deposition, when ordered, shall be taken in accordance with Section 2622.”  (Ibid.) 

Here, King advances the declaration of its counsel, Brian T. Gravdal (“Counsel”).  Counsel avers that Nzolameso’s deposition is necessary to investigate and defend King as Nzolameso was the driver of the vehicle that allegedly struck Plaintiff.  (Declaration of Brian T. Gravdal, ¶ 2.)  Counsel further states that Nzolameso is presently incarcerated for his conduct of driving under the influence in connection with the underlying collision in this case.  (Ibid.)  According to Counsel, Nzolameso is expected to testify as to the facts of the incident, including material facts necessary to establish fault, apportionment, and indemnification.  (Declaration of Brian T. Gravdal, ¶ 5.)  Accordingly, the Court finds Nzolameso’s expected testimony to be material to this litigation. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants King’s motion to compel Nzolameso’s examination by deposition per Penal Code section 2623, and orders that the deposition of Nzolameso proceed forthwith. 

King shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.