Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: BC705747, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC705747    Hearing Date: January 23, 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 Graciela Gonzalez (Plaintiff) sued Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Yadira Baida based on injuries Plaintiff allege she sustained in an incident which occurred while she was a passenger on bus.  Plaintiff moves to compel the appearance of four of Defendants’ expert witnesses (Deponents).  Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Defendants oppose the motion.  Plaintiff replies.

            The Court notes that Plaintiff filed one motion to compel the appearance of all four expert witnesses.  Instead, Plaintiff should have filed an individual motion as to each of Defendants’ expert witnesses for a total of four motions. The Court will therefore order Plaintiff to pay an additional $180 in filing fees. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (a).)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves to compel Deponents’ appearance for deposition under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450.  That section provides that if “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” fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and 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).) 

The Court finds that Deponents are neither parties to the action, employees of Defendants, nor any other category of individual specified in section 2025.450.  Nothing further in that provision empowers the Court to compel the appearance of a party’s expert witnesses.  Accordingly, the Court finds it is not authorized to compel Deponents’ appearance for deposition under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 as Plaintiff requests. 

The Court therefore denies the motion as procedurally defective.  Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of such.