Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00002013-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 05, 2023

10/06/2023  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  PI/PD/WD - Auto Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00002013-CU-PA-CTL TINAJERO VS PRETTYMAN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF JOSE TINAJERO'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER is DENIED.

Plaintiff JOSE CARLOS TINAJERO ('Plaintiff') seeks a protective order against DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND MELISSA ANN PRETTYMAN ('Defendants') as to Plaintiff's deposition.

Plaintiff terminated the deposition very early because Defendants' counsel was questioning Plaintiff regarding past accidents. Plaintiff's position is that the questions were outside the scope of this action because liability in this action is not disputed, and Plaintiff was not injured in the prior accident.

'The deposition officer may not suspend the taking of testimony without the stipulation of all parties present unless any party attending the deposition, including the deponent, demands that the deposition officer suspend taking the testimony to enable that party or deponent to move for a protective order under Section 2025.420 on the ground that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses that deponent or party.' (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2025.470.) 'The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420(b).) 'The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.' (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2025.420(a).) 'A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) '[T]he burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought.' (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 318 [Citation omitted].) 'A party seeking the protective order must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the issuance of a protective order is proper.' (Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145.) 'A reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with deponent's counsel at a deposition. Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. This was not done at the [Plaintiff's] deposition.' (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.) The Court agrees Plaintiff's purported meet and confer effort at the deposition was insufficient. In any event, the Court disagrees the line of questions amounted to 'unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420(b).) The Court disagrees the questions did not seek discoverable information. Defendants' questions about Plaintiff's prior accidents were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because they could have revealed that Plaintiff was in a substantially similar accident or has lingering injuries from his prior accidents. While Plaintiff testified that he was not injured, Plaintiff indicated that he did not remember multiple details Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2979258  50 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  TINAJERO VS PRETTYMAN [IMAGED]  37-2022-00002013-CU-PA-CTL concerning his prior accident.

'The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420(h).) '[T]he phrase 'substantial justification' has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.' (Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 75 [Citation omitted].) The Court finds Plaintiff was not substantially justified in bringing this motion. The line of questioning sought discoverable information and was not excessive.

Further, the Court cannot conclude Plaintiff's purported effort to meet and confer during the deposition was in good faith. Defendants are awarded $2,000 in sanctions against Plaintiff. The Court declines to grant any issue sanction.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2979258  50