SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiffs, Victoria Brianna Plancarte and Natalie Priscilla Barr, by and through her guardian ad litem Marielu Barr (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), Ayalnesh Tessema, Raquel Rosasarmijo for damages arising from an automobile incident.    

At this time, Plaintiffs move to compel the deposition of Lyft’s Person Most Qualified (“PMQ”). Lyft opposes the motion, and Plaintiffs filed a reply.    

 

II. Motion to Compel Deposition 

CCP § 2025.450(a) provides, “If, after service of a deposition notice, 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, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”  CCP § 2025.450 requires the Court to compel the deposition unless it finds a valid objection was served under §2025.410. 

Plaintiffs argue Lyft is stonewalling efforts to depose Lyft’s PMQ by exploiting the Court’s crowded motion docket. Plaintiff’s first sought the PMQ’s deposition by notice served in early June 2023 for the deposition to occur on July 11, 2023. Plaintiffs contend Lyft objected to the notice, and then filed a motion for protective order heard on October 4, 2023. After the hearing, Plaintiffs agreed to amend their notice. However, Plaintiffs aver Lyft quarreled with Plaintiffs’ amended notice, and the parties conferred at IDC on December 12, 2023 over the issue. After agreeing to the contents of the notice, Plaintiffs contend Lyft will not produce a witness to testify until late March 2024. Thus, Plaintiffs seek an order requiring Lyft to produce its PMQ.  

In opposition, Lyft argues there is nothing to compel, because Plaintiffs’ deposition notice does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450. Lyft contends that it gave dates for March 5, 6 and 7 for the PMQ deposition, and that it makes no difference between having a late February deposition as opposed to an early March deposition. Lyft requests an order for the PMQ deposition to proceed in early March 2024.  

In reply, Plaintiffs contend they brought the issue of Lyft’s rambling objections to Plaintiff’s notice of deposition at the IDC held on December 12, 2023, and that Plaintiffs agreed to inconsequential verbiage changes at IDC. Further, Plaintiffs argue that Lyft’s objections to the November 17, 2023 deposition was not timely served, because the objections were served three days before the deposition. 

Here, the Court had denied Lyft’s motion for protective order, because it failed to demonstrate good cause for Lyft’s PMQ deposition to not be taken at all. (Min. Order, Oct. 4, 2023.) Further, the parties were to resolve the disputes over the PMQ deposition categories at IDC, and thereafter participated in IDC. Plaintiffs’ argument that they had agreed to verbiage changes at IDC comports with the Court’s recollection of the matter, and the Court is not persuaded by Lyft’s contention that there is no basis to bring this motion to compel because Plaintiffs did not serve a new deposition notice. This PMQ deposition has been at issue between the parties since July 2023, and the Court finds no good reason for Lyft’s delay of this deposition.  

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Lyft’s PMQ’s deposition is GRANTED. Lyft’s PMQ is ordered to appear for deposition at a date, time, and location to be noticed by Plaintiffs. The parties are ordered to meet and confer on a mutually agreeable date in order for the PMQ deposition to proceed within 15 days. If Lyft does not meaningfully participate in the meet and confer discussion, Plaintiffs may unilaterally notice Lyft’s PMQ’s deposition, and Lyft’s PMQ is ordered to appear for the deposition on a date, time, and location and Plaintiffs’ election. However, Plaintiffs must give at least ten days’ notice of the deposition (notice extended per Code if by other than personal service), and the language on the amended deposition notice must be in accordance with any changes the parties had previously agreed to at IDC, and/or any stipulation thereafter made.  

 

III. Sanctions 

CCP § 2025.450(g)(1) requires the court to impose sanctions unless it finds the deponent acted with substantial justification or there are circumstances that render imposition of sanctions unjust. A court has discretion to award sanctions that are “suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks” but they should not be punitive in nature or levied for the purposes of punishing an offending party. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.) Plaintiffs request sanctions in the amount of $3,079.61. 

Plaintiffs are awarded 2 hours to prepare the motion, and 2 hours (collectively) to review the opposition, prepare the reply, and attend the hearing on the motion at the requested rate of $500 per hour, for a total of $2,000 in attorney’s fees for the instant motion. Further, Plaintiffs are awarded $79.61 for the motion filing fees, as costs.  

Sanctions are imposed against Lyft and its attorney of record, jointly and severally. They are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiffs, by and through her attorney of record, in the total amount of $2,079.61, within twenty (20) days.     

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

 

Dated this 30th day of January 2024