Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV05624, Date: 2024-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV05624    Hearing Date: January 16, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Hyundai Motor America            

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Plaintiffs Catalina Harb and Solei Harb

(1)   Motion to Compel Deposition and Accompanying Document Production of Plaintiff Catalina Harb

(2)   Motion to Compel Deposition and Accompanying Document Production of Plaintiff Solei Harb

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with each motion.

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF CATALINA HARB

Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order compelling plaintiff Catalina Harb (“C. Harb”) to appear for deposition and to produce the documents described in the Amended Notice of Deposition at deposition.

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . fails to appear for examination . . ., 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

First, the court grants Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff C. Harb to appear for and testify at a deposition to be taken by Defendant’s counsel.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Defendant served C. Harb with its Amended Notice of Deposition on April 11, 2023, noticing the deposition of C. Harb for April 25, 2023.  (Aliviado Decl., Ex. C, PDF p. 88 [Amended Notice of Deposition as to plaintiff C. Harb].)  Thereafter, on April 21, 2023, C. Harb served objections to the Amended Notice of Deposition and stated that C. Harb was unavailable on that date.  (Aliviado Decl., ¶ 11; Aliviado Decl., Ex. D, PDF pp. 109-134 [C. Harb’s objections].)  However, counsel did not provide the dates on which C. Harb would be available for deposition until December 20, 2023, nearly eight months after Defendant noticed the deposition and after the pending motion was filed.  (Aliviado Decl., ¶¶ 12-13, 15; Stoliker Decl., ¶ 7 [counsel for plaintiffs provided three dates for deposition on December 20, 2023, by email].) 

Thus, the court finds that Defendant has shown good cause to order C. Harb to appear for and testify at deposition.

Second, the court denies Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff C. Harb to produce at deposition the documents described in the Amended Notice of Deposition because (1) Defendant did not file a separate statement providing “all the information necessary to understand each discovery request” at issue in the Amended Notice of Deposition, and (2) Defendant did not “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(5) [“The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: [¶¶] (5) To compel . . . the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition”]; Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).)

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF SOLEI HARB

Defendant moves the court for an order compelling plaintiff Solei Harb (“S. Harb”) to appear for deposition and to produce the documents described in the Amended Notice of Deposition at deposition.

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . fails to appear for examination . . ., 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

First, the court grants Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff S. Harb to appear for and testify at a deposition to be taken by Defendant’s counsel.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

            Defendant served on S. Harb its Amended Notice of Deposition on April 11, 2023, noticing S. Harb’s deposition for April 25, 2023.  (Aliviado Decl., Ex. C, PDF p. 98 [Amended Notice of Deposition as to plaintiff S. Harb].)  Thereafter, S. Harb served objections to the Amended Notice of Deposition, stating that S. Harb and/or counsel for S. Harb were unavailable on the noticed date.  (Aliviado Decl., Ex. D, PDF pp. 136-161 [S. Harb’s objections].)  Although counsel for S. Harb provided dates for deposition, counsel did not do so until December 20, 2023, approximately eight months after S. Harb’s deposition was noticed and after this motion was filed.  (Stoliker Decl., ¶ 7 [counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel with three dates on which S. Harb would be available for deposition on December 20, 2023].) 

Thus, the court finds that Defendant has shown good cause to order S. Harb to appear for and testify at deposition.

Second, the court denies Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff S. Harb to produce at deposition the documents described in the Amended Notice of Deposition because (1) Defendant did not file a separate statement providing “all the information necessary to understand each discovery request” at issue in the Amended Notice of Deposition, and (2) Defendant did not “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(5); Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).)

ORDER

The court grants in part defendant Hyundai Motor America’s motion to compel deposition and accompanying document production of plaintiff Catalina Harb as follows.

            The court orders plaintiff Catalina Harb to appear for and testify at a deposition to be taken by counsel for defendant Hyundai Motor America, to be conducted by a videoconference platform selected by defendant Hyundai Motor America, within 15 days of the date of this order.

The court grants in part defendant Hyundai Motor America’s motion to compel deposition and accompanying document production of plaintiff Solei Harb as follows.

            The court orders plaintiff Solei Harb to appear for and testify at a deposition to be taken by counsel for defendant Hyundai Motor America, to be conducted by a videoconference platform selected by defendant Hyundai Motor America, within 15 days of the date of this order.

            The court orders defendant Hyundai Motor America to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 16, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court