Judge Sandy N. Leal, Case 2021-01223063 2023-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2021-01223063, Date: 2023-07-27 Tentative Ruling

1) Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)

2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

3) Motion to Quash

Defendant Linda Yurdagul’s motion to compel Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC to produce its Person Most Knowledgeable for deposition is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendant moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450.

Section 2025.450, subdivision (a) states, “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, 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.” (Emphasis added.)

On March 7, 2023, Defendant served a Notice of Taking Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable of Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC (“Notice”). (Ashour Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) The Notice scheduled the PMK deposition for April 19, 2023. (Id.) Defendant filed this Motion on March 16, 2023, approximately a month before the scheduled PMK deposition. After the filing of the motion to compel, but timely based on the April 19, 2023, scheduled deposition date, Plaintiff served written objections to the Notice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410. (Medvei Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 4.)

The prerequisites for filing a motion pursuant to section 2025.450(a) have not been met. Specifically, Plaintiff served valid objections under section 2025.410 prior to the scheduled deposition date. Further, since the Motion was filed before the scheduled PMK deposition, there is no showing that a deposition was held as scheduled on April 19, 2023, and that Plaintiff failed to appear.

Based on the foregoing, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendant to give notice.

MOTION NO. 2:

Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council LLC’s motion for an order quashing the deposition notice served on March 7, 2023 by Defendant Linda Yurdagul and for related protective order is DENIED as MOOT.

The Motion is MOOT based on the Court’s ruling denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to produce its Person Most Knowledgeable.

Defendant to give notice.

MOTION NO. 3:

Defendant Linda Yurdagul’s motion to compel Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC to provide further responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two is CONTINUED to ________.

Defendant moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300.

Section 2030.300 states, “(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party . . . [¶] (b)(1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 states, “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”

The rule requiring a good faith effort to meet and confer about discovery disputes “is designed to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order . . . [t]his, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.) “A reasonable and good-faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering . . . Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.) “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate also involves the exercise of discretion. The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the ‘reasonable and good faith attempt’ standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger, more complex discovery context, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted. In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice. The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

Defendant has failed to demonstrate that it made a good faith attempt at an informal resolution of the issues presented by the Motion. On April 6, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to Defendant’s counsel stating:

“Again, I am just asking you to please state with specificity as to each request in dispute, what kinds of facts you contend are missing from the responses. Once I have that from you, I will supplement with the exact information you are looking for. . . [¶] I've already agreed to provide whatever supplemental responses you want so there is no motion to make. I am just looking for guidance from you, the requesting party, as to what you contend is missing. . .”

(Ashour Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. C.) In another email dated April 7, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel again requested additional information that Defendant was seeking in response to the special interrogatories at issue in this Motion. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel stated in an email:

“From your email, I am getting the sense that you want us to provide a further list of the violations, and that you want us to put them in chronological order or something? Your discovery requests were not designed to get a complete chronology of your clients' business' violations, but I am willing to provide it to you. Just let me know if that is what you are asking for because I am truly at a loss.”

(Ashour Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. C.) Instead of responding to Plaintiff’s counsel’s email and providing guidance on what additional information Defendant sought, Defendant filed his Motion despite having sufficient time available before the filing deadline to respond to the letter. Since Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to supplement Plaintiff’s responses, Defendant’s counsel’s failure to respond and provide the additional information and/or continue attempts at informal resolution of the issues raised by the Motion does not show a good faith attempt to resolve the issues raised by the Motion.

Therefore, the parties are ORDERED to further meet and confer in person or telephonically regarding the issues raised in the Motion within 15 days of the notice of this order. The parties are to file a joint statement of items still in dispute and their respective positions at least 5 court days prior to the continued hearing. No other briefing is permitted.

Moving Defendant to give notice.