Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 19STCV22929, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 19STCV22929    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

SANDRA SALVADOR, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 19STCV22929 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

January 18, 2024 

 

 

I. Background  

Plaintiff Sandra Salvador (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) for injuries arising from a bus v. motor vehicle incident. Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s bus attempted to merge into traffic without use of a turn signal, and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle.  

Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant to produce documents to Plaintiff’s demand for production of documents with the deposition notice of Defendant’s bus operator Michael Marquise Williams (“Williams”). Defendant opposes the motion.  

The hearing was initially set for January 4, 2024; the Court was not available to hear oral argument on that date. Pursuant to the request of Plaintiff, the hearing was continued to January 18, 2024. (Min. Order, Jan. 4, 2024.) 

 

II. Motion to Compel Production of Documents At Deposition 

  1. Procedural 

CCP § 2025.480(b) provides that motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. 

Plaintiff conducted Williams’ deposition on January 27, 2023 and the motion 54 days later, on March 22, 2023. Further, the motion is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. The requirements of CCP § 2025.480(b) have therefore been met.   

 

  1. Production of Documents (Deposition) 

If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document under its control, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.  (CCP § 2025.480(a).)  If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition.  (CCP § 2025.480(i).) 

Here, the request for documents to Williams’ deposition notice requested: “Any and all video footage depicting the incident.” Defendant objected and responded: “Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections, Responding Party has already produced responsive documents, the DVR video of the incident, and will not reproduce.” Plaintiff contends Williams testified that there were approximately twelve operational video cameras on the exterior of the bus on the day of the incident, and argues Defendant is deliberately concealing footage from the exterior cameras. Plaintiff’s counsel argues they met and conferred with defense counsel, and requested a signed declaration from Defendant’s custodian of records affirming that no exterior video footage relating to the subject incident exists to obviate the necessity of the motion, but that Defendant refused to do so. Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Defendant to produce footage from the exterior cameras of the bus.   

In opposition, Defendant argues the Court denied Plaintiff’s previous motion to compel William’s second deposition because Plaintiff’s justification for resuming the deposition for the exterior bus video did not exist. Defense counsel declares Defendant has produced its entire DVR bus videos, which consisted of 7 cameras, and that the one external camera was not operational. (Decl. Plessala 4.)  Defense counsel further declares that there are no available exterior bus videos and that all videos have been produced. (Id. at 7.) Defendant’s expert, Thomas Fugger, was deposed regarding the DVR system and found that there were seven available cameras from the DVR, and the inoperable camera was a right curbside directed camera. (Ibid.) 

Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, the Court did not deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel Williams’ deposition, heard on September 28, 2023, because it determined no external video was available to justify the motion. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion because Plaintiff simply did not follow-up with scheduling Williams’ deposition to justify the motion to compel; the Court made no determination at that time about the existence or nonexistence of any exterior bus video. Here, the continuing issue regarding footage is Plaintiff’s disbelief that no exterior video footage of the incident exists for production, because Williams had testified there were approximately 12 operational exterior cameras on the date of the incident. Plaintiff seeks a declaration from Defendant’s custodian of records affirming the same. However, Plaintiff received verified responses regarding the videos by way of Defendant’s production on September 29, 2020 in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Further, defense counsel’s declaration, provided in opposition to the motion, attesting that there are no existing exterior bus videos of the incident is sufficient. Williams testified there were approximately 12 functional exterior cameras on the day of the incident, but also testified that as a bus operator, he does not have access to cameras on the bus, and he has not seen video regarding the incident. (Mot. Exh.  F.) Just because there may have been functional cameras on the exterior of the bus that day, based on Williams’ testimony, does not necessarily mean there is available corresponding footage to cast doubt over defense counsel’s representation that no exterior footage depicting the incident exists. Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant is concealing existing footage is without support. 

Based on the foregoing, the motion to compel production of documents is DENIED. Because the motion was denied, so too is Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.  

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 17th day of January 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court