Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2018-00050709-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 21, 2024

02/23/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Discovery Hearing 37-2018-00050709-CU-OE-CTL AVILA VS ALLAN COMPANY INC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY FROM DEFENDANT CEDARWOOD-YOUNG AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS is DENIED.

Plaintiff MARIA AVILA ('Plaintiff') seeks to compel Defendant Cedarwood-Young Company ('Defendant') to produce a person most knowledgeable ('PMK') that will answer questions Defendant's previously designated PMK did not answer.

Defendant is obligated to produce the person 'most qualified to testify on [Defendant's] behalf as to those matters [in the deposition notice] to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230.) 'If the subject matter of the questioning is clearly stated, the burden is on the entity, not the examiner, to produce the right witnesses. And, if the particular officer or employee designated lacks personal knowledge of all the information sought, he or she is supposed to find out from those who do!' (Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1395–1396 [Citation omitted]; Code Civ.

Proc., § 2025.230.) Defendant's designated PMK admitted that he did not conduct any document searches in preparation for the deposition, but he believed Defendant's counsel did so. Defendant asserts the motion is untimely under CCP section 2025.480. Plaintiff confusingly cites CCP section 2031.310, which pertains to compelling further responses to a demand for production. Plaintiff does not assert documents were not produced. Even if Plaintiff could rely upon CCP section 2031.310, the motion would be untimely as Plaintiff has not demonstrated that notice of the motion was 'given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing....' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) The notice of motion and motion was filed and served on December 20, 2023. The deposition took place on September 21, 2023. Plaintiff does not assert the production for the deposition took place after the deposition, nor that Defendant agreed to any extension of time, such that it is clear the motion was noticed and served long after the 45-day deadline. In such case, the Court must deny the motion and it is without jurisdiction to grant such motion. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3067987 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  AVILA VS ALLAN COMPANY INC [E-FILE]  37-2018-00050709-CU-OE-CTL Further, the Court finds the applicable statute is CCP section 2025.480 (CCP section 2025.450 would be applicable if Defendant had failed to produce a PMK). CCP section 2025.480 provides, in relevant part: (a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.

(b) This 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.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480.) This deadline is mandatory and treated as jurisdictional in nature as the Court must deny the motion when the motion is untimely. (See Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 136.) Plaintiff does not dispute that Plaintiff failed to file and serve this motion within '60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition,' which was on October 3, 2023.

(Decl. Hassan, ¶ 11, Exhibit C.) The Court must deny the motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3067987