Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: BC688121, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: BC688121    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Rosa Lopez

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Children’s Hospital Los Angeles

(1)   Motion to Compel Depositions

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Children’s Hospital Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Rosa C. Lopez

(2)   Motion for Protective Order and for Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rosa C. Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed this wrongful termination action against defendant Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (“Defendant”) on December 22, 2017, bringing claims pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and Labor Code, and claims for wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Now pending before the court are two motions filed by the parties: (1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions, filed on December 1, 2022, and (2) Defendant’s motion for a protective order and sanctions, filed on January 13, 2023.  

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice filed on December 1, 2022.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)  The court notes that, although the court may take judicial notice of the existence of Exhibit 5, the declaration of Ronald Stoneburner filed with the court on January 14, 2022, the court may not take judicial notice of the allegations and statements in the declaration.  (Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.)

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice filed on January 25, 2023.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)  The court takes judicial notice of the existence of the court records but not the truth of the matters stated therein.  (Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Ca.App.4th 1366, 1375.)

The court denies Defendant’s request for judicial notice, filed on January 31, 2023, as an improper attempt to introduce new evidence in reply.  (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537.)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The court rules on Plaintiff’s objections, filed on January 31, 2023, as follows:

Objection Nos. 1-9 are overruled.

Objection No. 10 is sustained. 

The court sustains Plaintiff’s February 2, 2023 objections to Defendant’s request for judicial notice.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) compelling the depositions of nine witnesses (Amanda Zink, Malika Maddison, Alan Wayne, Beth Maldonado, Christine Boyes, Robert “Doe,” Daniel Hernandez, Tiffany Yip, and Defendant’s person most knowledgeable), and (2) awarding sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $2,800.

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel the depositions of Amanda Zink, Malika Maddison, Alan Wayne, Beth Maldonado, Christine Boyes, Robert “Doe,” Daniel Hernandez, and Tiffany Yip, if they are an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable as to the matters set forth in the deposition notice as follows: (1) items 1 through 3, limited to the time period between January 1, 2016 through July 13, 2017; (2) items 4, and 6 through 10; (3) item 5, limited to the time period between January 1, 2016 through July 13, 2017; (4) item 11, as to subparts (a) through (m); (5) item 12, limited to the time period between January 1, 2016 through July 13, 2017; and (6) items 13 through 17, and 20.

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable as to the matters set forth in item 11, subparts (n) and (o), because they (1) are overbroad since they call for information not relevant to the subject matter involved in this action and that does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) call for information protected by the right of privacy of nonparty employees.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable as to the matters set forth in items 18 and 19 because they (1) are overbroad since they call for information not relevant to the subject matter involved in this action and that does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) call for information protected by the right of privacy of nonparty employees.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable as to the matters set forth in items 21 and 22 because they (1) are overbroad, since they call for information that is not relevant to the subject matter involved in this action and that does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) impose undue burden and expense on Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

Although each of the notices of depositions of the nine deponents who are the subjects of Plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions includes requests to produce documents, Plaintiff’s motion does not request an order compelling the production of documents described in the deposition notices, and Plaintiff has not filed a separate statement setting forth and addressing the document requests as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subdivision (a)(5).

The court denies Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant because, in light of the mixed results of the court’s ruling, the circumstances presented make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g).)

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Defendant moves the court for an order (1) issuing a protective order (i) prohibiting Plaintiff from serving any further deposition notices or deposition subpoenas in this action until the conclusion of the depositions of Malika Maddison, Amanda Zink, Christine Boyes, George Weiss, Gayathri Jith, Beth Maldonado, and Ronald Stoneburner, and (ii) requiring the parties to meet and confer before the service of any notices of depositions or subpoenas in the event that Plaintiff seeks to depose any additional witnesses, which would require Plaintiff to obtain court approval upon a showing of good cause that the deposition has not been sought to harass or further any improper purpose if Defendant does not agree to produce the witness, and (2) awarding sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the amount of $3,500.

The court finds that there is not good cause to grant the relief requested by Defendant.  The court therefore denies Defendant’s motion for protective order.

The court denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff because Plaintiff did not unsuccessfully oppose Defendant’s motion for protective order.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.090, subd. (d).)

The court denies Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant, made in opposition, because the court finds that the circumstances presented make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.090, subd. (d).)

ORDER

The court grants plaintiff Rosa C. Lopez’s motion to compel the deposition of witnesses Amanda Zink, Malika Maddison, Alan Wayne, Beth Maldonado, Christine Boyes, Robert “Doe,” Daniel Hernandez, and Tiffany Yip, if they are an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

The court orders witnesses Amanda Zink, Malika Maddison, Alan Wayne, Beth Maldonado, Christine Boyes, Robert “Doe,” Daniel Hernandez, and Tiffany Yip to appear for deposition within 60 days of the date of service of this order on dates to be agreed upon by Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s counsel, if they are an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of Defendant. 

The court grants plaintiff Rosa C. Lopez’s motion to compel the deposition of defendant Children Hospital Los Angeles’ person most qualified as limited below.

The court orders defendant Children Hospital Los Angeles to produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to the matters to the extent of any information reasonably available to the deponent, as set forth in the deposition notice as follows: (1) items 1 through 3, 5, and 12, limited to the time period between January 1, 2016 through July 13, 2017, and (2) items 4 through 10, 11, subparts (a) through (m), 12 through 17, and 20.

            The court denies plaintiff Rosa C. Lopez’s motion to compel defendant Children Hospital Los Angeles to produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to the matters set forth in items 11, subparts (n) and (o), 18, 19, 21, and 22 in the deposition notice.

            The court denies defendant Children’s Hospital Los Angeles’s motion for a protective order.

The court denies all requests for sanctions.

The court orders plaintiff Rosa C. Lopez to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 9, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court