Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV38118, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 22STCV38118    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Witnesses to Testify at Deposition Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.230, and for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party:  Defendant PIH Health Good Samaritan Hospital

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff Angel Medical Group, Inc.

Defendant’s Motion is DENIED as moot. Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On December 7, 2022, Plaintiff Angel Medical Group, Inc. (d.b.a. Superior Choice Medical Group, Inc.) filed its Complaint against Defendant PIH Health Good Samaritan Hospital on the following causes of action:

(1)       Breach of contract;

(2)       Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

(3)       Common count – open book account;

(4)       Negligence; and

(5)       Declaratory relief.

On February 8, 2023, Defendant filed its Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Witnesses to Testify at Deposition Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.230, and for Monetary Sanctions.

On March 1, 2023, the Court sustained Defendant’s Demurrer to the fifth cause of action for declaratory relief. The Court overruled Defendant’s Demurrer to the other four causes of action.

On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Opposition. Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Curtis S. Leavitt; and (2) Declaration of Benjamin Pezeshki.

On March 7, 2023, Defendant filed its Reply.  

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)¿A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)¿¿ 

“If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230.) 

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.”¿¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)¿

The motion must set forth both facts showing good cause justifying the demand for any documents and a meet and confer declaration.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (b)(2).)

“Implicit in the requirement that counsel contact the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance is a requirement that counsel listen to the reasons offered and make a good faith attempt to resolve the issue,” including by rescheduling. (Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Serv. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1124.) 

II.        Discussion

Defendant moves the Court to compel Plaintiff to produce witnesses to testify at deposition and to award monetary sanctions. (Motion, p. 3:3–13.)

However, the deposition at issue is now scheduled for March 14, 2023. (Opposition, p. 3:1–7; Reply, p. 4:11–12.) Thus, the issue is moot. The evidence submitted to the Court indicates that Plaintiff’s Counsel acted promptly and in good faith while the Parties’ respective Counsel met and conferred on this issue. (Decl. Pezeshki, ¶ 3; Decl. Leavitt, ¶¶ 3–4 and Exs. A–C.) The Court determines that sanctions are not appropriate here.

The Court DENIES as moot Defendant’s Motion. The Court DENIES Defendant’s Request for Sanctions.

III.      Conclusion

Defendant’s Motion is DENIED as moot. Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.