Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2023-00043320-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 04, 2024

04/05/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00043320-CU-WT-CTL TRACY VS 1835 COLUMBIA STREET LP [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Notice of Motion and Supporting Declarations, 03/11/2024

Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Additional Deposition Time and for Sanctions (ROA 33) is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff asserts the motion is untimely. Both Plaintiff and Defendant cite the wrong Code section on this point. The applicable statute is Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, which applies when a deponent appears at deposition but does not produce a document requested in a deposition notice. Per this statute, Defendant was required to file its motion 'no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition.' (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(b).) The deposition was taken on January 15, 2024 and was certified by the court reporter on January 29, 2024. (Resendes Decl., Exh. 2, p. 258.) This motion was filed March 11, 2024. As such, it is timely.

Plaintiff asserts Defendant failed to file a meet and confer declaration. Defendant was required to file a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(b).) Defendant complied with this requirement. (ROA 35.) The declaration states Defendant's counsel wrote to Plaintiff after the deposition regarding their intent to bring this motion. (Resendes Decl. ¶ 10; see also Exh. 3, emails exchanged.) Plaintiff asserts the document is not relevant to the litigation. The scope of discovery in California is broad, and includes any matter that 'appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) Here, Defendant asserts on reply that the document is relevant to Plaintiff's credibility, as his resume states he is a German barrister. (Resendes Decl. ¶ 9.) Accordingly, the court concludes the request is at least reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiff asserts he answered all questions regarding his legal education in Germany during the deposition and produced all requested documents. (Tracy Decl. at ¶3; see also Exh. C.) The court interprets this as an argument the motion is moot. However, even if Plaintiff has now produced the responsive document, Defendant is still entitled to question Plaintiff about this document. The motion is not moot.

Defendant seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to pay for the preparation of the transcript for the additional deposition. Absent good cause, the party noticing party is required to bear the cost of the transcript.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.510(b).) The court does not find good cause to order Plaintiff to pay costs for the transcript of the additional deposition. Plaintiff has already testified about his credentials. Defendant does not dispute Plaintiff testified at his first deposition that he is not a licensed attorney in Germany.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3090237  11 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  TRACY VS 1835 COLUMBIA STREET LP [IMAGED]  37-2023-00043320-CU-WT-CTL Defendant's request for monetary sanctions is also denied. The court finds Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in opposing this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(j).) Plaintiff has already provided testimony regarding his legal education in Germany and the fact that he is not a licensed attorney in Germany, he made a good-faith if ultimately unavailing objection on the grounds the request for documents was not relevant to the lawsuit, and he has produced the responsive document.

Once confirmed, this ruling shall be the final ruling of the court and no further written order is required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3090237  11