Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 30-2021-01230054, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling
Please Note: The hearing on this matter is scheduled for 8:30 A.M.
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
Pursuant to the Notice of Withdrawal of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Request Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed 10/17/2022, this matter is taken off calendar.
Motions to Compel
Plaintiff Daniel Jones’ motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Sandra Guerena and responses to the attached document requests is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Daniel Jones’ motion to compel the deposition of the person-most-knowledgeable of Defendant Palm Retirement Center, LLC and responses to the attached document requests is GRANTED.
Defendant Sandra Guerena is ORDERED to appear for deposition at a mutually agreeable date and time, but no later than 30 days after receiving notice of this ruling.
Defendant Palm Retirement Center, LLC is ORDERED to produce the person most knowledgeable for deposition at a mutually agreeable date and time, but no later than 30 days after receiving notice of this ruling.
Defendants Sandra Guerena and Defendant Palm Retirement Center, LLC shall serve verified responses to the document requests attached to their respective notices of deposition, pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2031.210 et seq., no later than 20 days after receiving notice of this ruling.
Defendants Sandra Guerena and Defendant Palm Retirement Center, LLC shall produce all documents in their custody, possession, or control that are responsive to the document requests attached to their respective notices of deposition, pursuant to Civil Procedure Code sections 2031.210 et seq., no later than 30 days after receiving notice of this ruling.
Defendant Sandra Guerena is ORDERED to pay sanctions of $2,310 (4.5 hours x $500 per hour + $60 filing fee) to Plaintiff Daniel Jones no later than 30 days after receiving notice of this ruling.
Defendant Palme Retirement Center, LLC is ORDERED to pay sanctions of $2,310 (4.5 hours x $500 per hour + $60 filing fee) to Plaintiff Daniel Jones no later than 30 days after receiving notice of this ruling.
Plaintiff Daniel Jones moves to compel the depositions of Defendant Sandra Guerena and the person-most-knowlegeable (PMK) of Defendant Palm Retirement Center, and responses to the document requests attached to their respective notices of deposition.
“Any party may obtain discovery . . . . by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) If the deponent is not a natural person, “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 the party being deposed objects to the deposition notice, it must assert its objections at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subds. (a) & (b).)
“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, [] 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. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a); Robbins v. Regents of University of California (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 653, 659.)
Defendants concede that Plaintiffs entitled to depose Defendant Guerena and the PMK of Defendant Palm. Between July 2022 and September of 2022, Defendants repeatedly promised to provide dates for the deposition of Defendant Guerena and the PMK of Defendant Palm, yet they ultimately failed to do so, even after Plaintiff informed Defendants that motions to compel would be forthcoming. (See Pourshalimi Declaration, ¶¶ 2-18.) Thus, Defendants’ objections based on the fact that the deposition dates were unilaterally and objections based on a failure to meet-and-confer are without merit.
Defendants also request that their depositions be delayed until 30 days after the deposition of Sonia Bhatia (Palm Retirement Center, LLC’s present licensee), which is scheduled for 12/01/2022. Defendants assert that they have little or no knowledge or documents regarding the operations of Palm Retirement Center or the residency of the Decedent Teresa Jones. Defendants claim that Bhatia’s deposition may yield “critical records” that Defendants need to review prior to their depositions.
However, Defendants point to no provision of the Civil Discovery Act or other law that requires a deponent to review documents or conduct research prior to a deposition. A deponent need only testify as to what is within their knowledge, or in the case of a PMK deponent, what is “reasonably available to the deponent.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230.) The same is true for document requests – a party need only produce documents within the party’s custody, control, or possession. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)
Further, there is no guarantee that Bhatia’s deposition will occur in a timely manner or that Bhatia will produce any relevant documents. Thus, scheduling the deposition of the Defendants after the deposition of Bhatia is likely to cause further delay for no apparent purpose.
Defendants state that they do not possess any documents responsive to the document requests attached to the notice of depositions and that any such documents would be in the possession of Bhatia, the new licensee of Defendant Palm. Defendants should make this representation in the manner required in response to any document request or to produce any responsive documents presently in their possession, custody, or control. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.210 et seq.)
Sanctions
If the court grants a motion to compel a deposition pursuant to a notice of deposition, the Civil Procedure Code requires the court to impose monetary sanctions “in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated” unless the court finds that the deponent “acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) The same is true for a party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel responses to document requests. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)
In this case, Defendants’ objections are without merit and Defendants failed to appear for their depositions or produce responses or responsive documents, despite conceding that Plaintiff was entitled to the depositions, responses, and responsive documents. Defendants have not acted with substantial justification or shown that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Thus, the court must award sanctions to Plaintiff and against Defendants.
Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.