Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV31041, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31041    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 29

Legal Standard

“If a deponent fails to answer any question . . . the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc, § 2025.480, subd. (a).) “If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition.” (Id., subd. (i).)  

A motion to compel under Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.480, “…shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480(b).) The 60-day deadline is mandatory. (Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) Bader,¿156 Cal.App.4th 123, 136.)  

 Monetary sanctions are mandatory against an unsuccessful moving or opposing party unless they acted with substantial justification or imposition of sanctions would be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (j).)

To prevail, a party moving for an order compelling further responses to deposition questions must make “a fact-specific showing of relevance.”  (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448 [analogous rule for document production].) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made.  (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [analogous rule for document production].) 

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”   

Discussion

Defendants move to compel further deposition answers at Plaintiff’s deposition. They argue that Plaintiff refused to answer three separate questions as a result of Plaintiff’s counsel’s objections and instruction not to answer. These three questions were: (1) Whether Plaintiff had taken any recreational drugs within 24 hours of the accident; (2) Whether Plaintiff was referred to Dr. Johnson by anyone other than his lawyer; and (3) Whether Plaintiff had any reason to believe that his medical providers misunderstood Plaintiff when he explained what happened.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Answer Deposition Questions and Request for Sanctions is continued to allow the parties to participate in an informal discovery conference as required by Standing Order Re Personal Injury Procedures, Spring Street Courthouse, Pg. 7, ¶¶ 18-19. 

In substance, this is a motion to compel further responses to deposition questions as Plaintiff objected to Defendant’s questions and precluded Plaintiff from answering them. 

However, motions that require a further response to discovery require that the parties first participate in an informal discovery conference with the court. Standing Order Re Personal Injury Procedures. The Court’s file does not reflect that the parties participated in an IDC with respect to the objections to questions made at Plaintiff’s deposition.  

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court continues the hearing on Defendant’s motion to ___________________________. The parties are ordered to schedule an IDC with the Court.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.