Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV19088, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19088    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    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 Ulrike Zillner (Plaintiff) sued Defendants Maple Street Burbank Homeowners Association and Ross Morgan & Company, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) based on a slip and fall incident which occurred at the premises of Defendant Maple Street Burbank Homeowners Association (HOA).  Defendants move for a protective order precluding Plaintiff from deposing Sheri Reeves, the HOA President at the time of the incident, and the person most knowledgeable for HOA (Deponent).  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

ANALYSIS

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, subdivision (a), “[b]efore, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (a).) “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).) “Generally, a deponent seeking a protective order will be required to show that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness involved in [the discovery procedure] clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110.) “A party seeking the protective order must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the issuance of a protective order is proper.” (Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145.)

            Here, Defendants argue Plaintiff has already taken the deposition of HOA’s originally designated PMK, Tammy Gamblin, who testified to the areas of PMK categories of which she is knowledgeable, outlined in Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of Defendant HOA’s PMK.  Further Defendants argue that HOA has no one who can testify as PMK on its behalf with regard to the remaining PMK categories outlined in Plaintiff’s deposition notice which were not already addressed by the originally designated PMK, Tammy Gamblin.  Defendants’ counsel indicates that the only other person who would be able to testify as HOA’s PMK is the former HOA president, Sheri Reeves (Reeves).  However, Reeves is not a current employee or Board member of HOA, and thus may not be subject to deposition as an HOA representative.  (See Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1398 (finding “[p]ersons formerly affiliated with a party (e.g., former officers or employees) are not required to attend a deposition unless subpoenaed”).)  Finally, Defendants attest that the current HOA president has never been on the HOA Board before this year and is not fully familiar and/or knowledgeable with the PMK categories requested.

            Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants have met their burden in demonstrating that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness involved in conducting the deposition of HOA’s PMK clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for a protective order precluding Plaintiff from deposing HOA’s PMK.

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