Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV45910, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45910    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendants New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc., and Barkev Fronjian

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Maria Sao

Motion to Quash and for Protective Order

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

DISCUSSION

Defendants New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc., and Barkev Fronjian (“Defendants”) move the court for an order (1) quashing the Notice of Deposition of party-affiliated witness Catherine Krause (“Krause”); (2) issuing a protective order (i) requiring the deposition of Krause to be taken on a date convenient to Krause and Defendants, and (ii) sequencing discovery so that Plaintiff’s deposition is taken first; and (3) awarding sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel and in favor of Defendants in the amount of $5,525.

The court denies Defendants’ request to quash the Notice of Deposition of Krause as moot because Plaintiff has presented evidence showing that she has taken Krause’s deposition off calendar.  (Dean Decl., ¶ 34 [“Plaintiff was forced to take off calendar the Krause deposition scheduled for February 23, 2023”]; Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (c).)

The court finds that Defendants have not shown good cause for a protective order requiring the deposition of Krause to be taken on a date convenient to Krause and Defendants because (1) as of the date that Plaintiff filed her opposition to this motion, Plaintiff has taken Krause’s deposition off calendar, and (2) Defendants have not presented evidence showing that Plaintiff refuses to take the deposition of Krause at a mutually convenient time, such that a protective order is warranted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b)(2).)

The court finds that Defendants have not shown good cause to establish the sequence and timing of discovery such that Plaintiff’s deposition is taken before Krause’s deposition because (1) Defendants have not shown that sequencing discovery in this manner is convenient to all parties and witnesses or in the interests of justice, and (2) although Defendants contend that counsel for the parties previously agreed that Plaintiff’s deposition was to be taken before other depositions, (i) Defendants have not produced evidence establishing the existence of a written agreement to that effect that the court could enforce, and (ii) Plaintiff has produced evidence showing that Plaintiff withdrew from the agreement on September 13, 2022.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.020, subd. (b) [“the court may establish the sequence and timing of discovery for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice”]; Johnson Decl., ¶ 23 [counsel previously “agreed that Plaintiff’s deposition would be taken prior to Defendant’s or any witness depositions”]; Dean Decl., Ex. I, p. 2 [September 13, 2022 email from Plaintiff’s counsel stating that counsel “can no longer agree to defer defense witness depositions until after Plaintiff’s deposition” due to Defendants’ delay].)

The court denies Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel since Plaintiff did not unsuccessfully oppose Defendants’ motion to quash and for a protective order.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.410, subd. (d), 2025.420, subd. (h).)

The court denies Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendants because the court finds that the circumstances presented make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.410, subd. (d), 2025.420, subd. (h).)

ORDER

The court denies defendants New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc., and Barkev Fronjian’s motion to quash and for protective order.

The court orders plaintiff Maria Sao to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  May 18, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court