I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Abram Tavera for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for June 20, 2024.   

At this time, Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable and Document Production.  On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff served a Notice of Deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) and Document Production Requests on Defendant. (Sarkesians Decl., ¶ 2.) On January 17, 2024, Defendant objected to Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition due to being unilaterally set. (Id., ¶ 3.) On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel requesting alterative dates for said deposition. (Id., ¶ 4.) On January 26, 2024, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel stating that they cannot comply with the notice of deposition as “no one that fits the categories” provided.  

In opposition, Defendant objects to the deposition on the ground that the date was unilaterally selected by Plaintiff’s counsel. Further, Defendant contends that there is no such entity as “The Estate of Abraham Tavera” and that there is no PMK for a non-existent entity. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Here, objections to a notice of the deposition are very limited and may only pertain to errors or irregularities in the deposition notice itself. (CCP § 2025.410, [“Any party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2025.210) waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney or party on whom the deposition notice was served.].) Article 2 which consists of Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2025.210-2025.295 provide specific requirements that a deposition notice must satisfy. The unilateral setting of the deposition, in itself, is not a valid basis for objection. 

In terms of the contention of the non-existence of “The Estate of Abraham Tavera” (Doe 1), even in instances where an entity is not in existence for purposes of producing a person most knowledgeable or qualified, a court may direct an entity to elect or appoint an individual who can act as a person most qualified or knowledgeable for purposes of a deposition.¿ (Melendrez v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1347.)¿ Here, defendant Abram Tavera (“Decedent”) has passed away, and defense counsel avers that the defense has already admitted liability for the incident’s occurrence. Due to the closure of Department 30 of Spring Street Courthouse and the recent transfer of this action to the Department 31 of Spring Street Courthouse, this Court is unaware of any discussions that may have previously been held regarding a substitution for Decedent as a party to this action. As such, the Court will work with the parties to schedule an IDC so that the Court may discuss the issues with the parties prior to ruling on the motion. In general, a pending action may still proceed against Decedent’s personal representative or successor-in-interest (CCP § 377.40). An estate cannot speak for itself, nor can counsel represent a client who is dead. There would necessarily need to be an appointed personal representative on behalf of Decedent. It would appear to this Court that Plaintiff would therefore be entitled to take the deposition of Decedent’s designated personal representative and/or successor-in-interest, regardless of whether the personal representative may or may not have any relevant information in this matter. The Court will discuss the issues with the party at the hearing and at an IDC, if needed. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 14th day of May 2024