Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV18752, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18752    Hearing Date: June 20, 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

MOTIONS

            Plaintiff Martha Olivares (Plaintiff) moves to compel the deposition of the person most qualified (PMQ) for Defendant Parkwood Landscape Maintenance, Inc. (Defendant).  Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Defendant opposes the motion.  Plaintiff replies.

ANALYSIS

Here, on December 22, 2022, Plaintiff served the first deposition notice for Defendant’s PMQ on Defendant.  Plaintiff noticed the deposition of the PMQ for January 17, 2023.  On January 12, 2023, when Plaintiff emailed Defendant’s counsel to confirm attendance at the January 17, 2023 deposition, Defendant’s Counsel stated that Defendant never received notice of the deposition and requested to reschedule. 

On January 20, 2023, Defendant’s Counsel provided new dates for the PMQ deposition: March 13, 15, 16, or 17.  On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff served her First Continued Notice of Deposition, scheduling the deposition for March 17, 2023.  On March 9, 2023, when Plaintiff’s Counsel emailed Defendant’s Counsel to confirm attendance at the March 17, 2023 deposition, Defendant’s Counsel responded that they would need to reschedule due to Defendant’s counsel’s imminent departure from his law firm. 

On March 31, 2023, after no dates were provided by Defendant’s counsel, Plaintiff served her Second Continued Notice of Deposition, scheduling the deposition for May 1, 2023.  On April 27, 2023, Defendant served its Objection to Plaintiff’s Deposition Notice, objecting on various grounds, including Plaintiff’s Counsel’s failure to first confer with Defendant’s counsel regarding the date of the deposition. 

As of the filing date of the motion, Defendant has not produced a PMQ for deposition, nor has it provided dates for rescheduling of a deposition in the future. 

In opposition, Defendant highlights that it served valid objections to Plaintiff’s Notice of Third Continuance of Deposition which stated, in summary: “the categories of topic are vague and ambiguous as to many of the undefined terms, are overbroad, not particularized, and seek privileged information and premature disclosure of expert witness opinion . . . the requests are overbroad, burdensome, harassing and seek material that is not relevant not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence.”  (Opposition, p. 3, see also Declaration of Evan Jacobi, ¶ 14; Exhibit 9.)  Defendant further highlights that it never has refused to produce a PMQ but rather was working to identify a PMQ that could cover the 11 broad topics and further search for documents responsive to the 68 broad requests identified in Plaintiff’s notice of deposition. 

Finally, Defendant avers that Plaintiff has not sufficiently met and conferred in good faith as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b)(2).  Section 2025.450, subdivision (b)(2) provides that a motion to compel a deponent’s attendance and testimony “shall be accompanied by a 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b) [emphasis added].)  Here, rather than Defendant’s PMQ failing to attend the set deposition date of May 1, 2023, Defendant served valid objections to Plaintiff’s Notice of Third Continuance of Deposition, and as such the deposition did not go forward on May 1, 2023.  (See Declaration of Evan Jacobi, ¶¶ 12-15.)  Under these circumstances, a meet and confer declaration in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 is required.

Here, as Defendant argues, the Court notes that while Plaintiff sets forth efforts to meet and confer with Defendant regarding scheduling dates of the deposition, Plaintiff has failed to detail her meet and confer efforts with Defendant regarding the issues raised in Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s Notice of Third Continuance of Deposition, regarding the substance of the requests of the notice of deposition.  (See Declaration of Evan Jacobi, ¶¶ 12-15.)  Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the meet and confer requirement outlined in Code of Civil procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b)(2).

Accordingly, the Court shall continue the hearing to August 4, 2023 at 1:30 PM in Department 32 to allow the parties time to meet and confer regarding Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s Notice of Third Continuance of Deposition. 

Plaintiff shall file and serve a supplemental declaration detailing the parties’ meet and confer efforts on or before July 21, 2023.  Thereafter, Defendant may file and serve a supplemental declaration regarding detailing the parties’ meet and confer efforts on or before July 28, 2023.  If the parties resolve the underlying issues through the meet and confer process, and the determine that a hearing on the motion is unnecessary, Plaintiff shall withdraw the motion on the Court Reservation System as soon as practicable. 

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