Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV08198, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08198    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

 

 

rebecca marshall ;

 

Plaintiff,

 

 

vs.

 

 

college hospital inc. , et al.;

 

Defendants.

Case No.:

22STCV08198

 

 

Hearing Date:

March 4, 2024

 

 

Time:

10:00 a.m.

 

 

 

[Tentative] Order RE:

 

defendant’s motion to compel resumption of deposition of plaintiff and for sanctions

 

 

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant College Hospital Inc.  

 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Rebecca Marshall

Motion to Compel Resumption of Deposition of Plaintiff and for Sanctions

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

DISCUSSION

Defendant College Hospital Inc. (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling plaintiff Rebecca Marshall (“Plaintiff”) to resume her deposition, and (2) awarding sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the amount of $7,712.25.

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . ., without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it . . ., the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Defendant took Plaintiff’s deposition on August 25, 2023 and October 25, 2023.  (Fox Decl., ¶¶ 9, 22.)  Defendant asserts that, by the end of the second session of Plaintiff’s deposition, while Defendant had completed its questioning on various topics, it was unable to complete its questioning regarding (1) Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation and wrongful termination, (2) Plaintiff’s emotional distress damages, (3) the three witness declarations produced by Plaintiff on October 20, 2023, and (4) Plaintiff’s handwritten notes identified in the first session of her deposition.  (Fox Decl., ¶ 24.)  Thus, on November 6, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with its Eighth Amended Notice of Deposition, setting Plaintiff’s third session for November 20, 2023.  (Fox Decl., ¶ 25; Fox Decl., Ex. O.)  Plaintiff served an objection and amended objection on November 17, 2023, and did not appear for deposition on November 20, 2023.  (Fox Decl., ¶¶ 27-30; Fox Decl., Ex. S [transcript of nonappearance].)  Defendant anticipates completing Plaintiff’s deposition within a few hours or one-half of a day.  (Mot., p. 14:23-26.)

The court finds that Defendant has shown good cause to compel Plaintiff to attend and testify at a third session of her deposition so that Defendant may question Plaintiff about her claims for retaliation, wrongful termination, and emotional distress damages.  (Fox Decl., ¶ 24.)  

The court notes that, in opposition, Plaintiff asserts that, in total, she has been deposed for 15 hours and 9 minutes, which is beyond the acceptable deposition time for a witness in a complex case.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.290, subd. (b)(3).)  There is no 14-hour time limit for a witness in an employment action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.290, subd. (b)(4) [the deposition time limit does not apply “[t]o any case brought by an employee or applicant for employment against an employer for acts or omissions arising out of or relating to the employment relationship”].)  The court further finds, based on Defendant’s representations that the third session of Plaintiff’s deposition will be completed within a few hours and will be taken for the purpose of questioning Plaintiff regarding the specific categories of information set forth above, that Defendant’s conduct is not harassing.  However, the court will order that the deposition shall last no more than four hours. 

The court finds that the circumstances presented would make the imposition of sanctions unjust and therefore denies Defendant’s request for an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

ORDER

            The court grants in part defendant College Hospital Inc.’s motion to compel resumption of deposition of plaintiff Rebecca Marshall as follows.

            The court orders plaintiff Rebecca Marshall to appear for and testify at a deposition to be taken by counsel for defendant College Hospital Inc., on a videoconference platform to be selected by defendant College Hospital, Inc., within 30 days of the date of service of this order.  The court orders that the deposition shall last no more than four hours.

The court denies defendant College Hospital Inc.’s request for monetary sanctions.

The court orders defendant College Hospital, Inc. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED:  March 4, 2024

 

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court