Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV17389, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17389    Hearing Date: December 14, 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 Ashout Shahnazarian (Plaintiff) sued Defendants Route 66 Collision Center, Inc. and Gevorg Nersisyan (collectively, Defendants) based on a trip and fall incident.  Plaintiff moves to compel the appearance of Defendant Route 66 Collision Center, Inc.’s Person Most Qualified (PMQ) for deposition.  Defendants oppose the motion.  Plaintiff replies.  

ANALYSIS

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent’s attendance and testimony.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) 

Here, on October 24, 2022, Plaintiff served the subject deposition notice on Defendants.  Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Route 66 Collision Center, Inc.’s PMQ for November 7, 2022. 

Defendants served their objections to the deposition notice on November 2, 2022, asserting the following grounds: (1) the date and time(s) of the deposition were unilaterally set by Plaintiff's counsel without any effort to coordinate an available date for either the deponent(s) or Defendants' counsel, who are all unavailable on November 7, 2022; (2) the categories of information and documents sought are overbroad, uncertain, unduly and unreasonably burdensome and oppressive, compound, vexatious, harassing and in noncompliance with the Code of Civil Procedure due to the unreasonable, excessive and impermissible scope of request for documents contained therein; (3) the categories fail to describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2025.230; (4) the contents of the noticed deposition do not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.270; (5) documents sought exceed the scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2017.010, et seq., and are vague and ambiguous in its entirety; (6) the definitions are overly broad in scope and time, unduly burdensome, harassing, oppressive, vague and ambiguous, compound, seek information violative of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, assume facts, lacks foundation, seeks information already provided to Plaintiff, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence; (7) the Notice is improperly burdensome and harassing in that it attempts to place more of the burden on Defendant than the value of the information sought, especially since the information has already been produced to Plaintiff; and (8) the Notice seeks to require it to respond on behalf of any other entity and seeks information and documents outside of the custody and control of Defendant.” 

Defendants did not produce a PMQ for deposition on November 7, 2022.  As of the date of filing of this motion, the PMQ has not appeared for deposition, nor has Defendants’ counsel supplied alternative dates for a deposition.  

In opposition, Defendants argue there is good cause for the Court to grant a protective order to control the deposition proceedings at issue based on the following: Plaintiff has already been provided with the requested insurance policy requested in the deposition notice, there are no other discovery documents pertaining to insurance coverage in the PMQ’s possession that have not already been provided, trial date is not until October of 2023 so there is no urgency for the deposition to go forward immediately, there are less intrusive methods to provide discovery, the PMQ is having ongoing eye issues which limit his ability to attend deposition.   The Court notes that Defendants have not filed and served a motion for protective order. 

In reply, Plaintiff reiterates he is entitled to take the deposition of the PMQ and Defendants have failed to establish that justice requires a protective order due to unwarranted, annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.

The Court finds that Defendants have not presented valid objections to the November 7, 2022 deposition notice.  As Plaintiff notes in their reply the PMQ’s failing eyesight is not alone enough to prevent him being produced for deposition nor enough for the Court to issue a protective order preventing the deposition.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel the appearance of the PMQ per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, and orders the PMQ to appear for deposition, and produce responsive documents, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders, unless Plaintiff stipulates otherwise. 

Further, the Court orders counsel for the parties, in advance of the PMQ deposition and in compliance with the Discovery Act, to meet and confer to resolve informally any outstanding issues related to the PMQ deposition to obviate any further unnecessary discovery motion practice. 

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