Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV35634, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35634    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: 39

Fredy Wembe v. Target Stores, et al.

Case No. 21STCV35634

Motion to Compel Deposition of Judith Andrades

            NOTICE: The Court posts this tentative order on Monday, March 18, 2024, in advance of the hearing on Wednesday, March 20, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.  The Court provides notice: If Ms. Andrades does not appear, either remotely or in-person, she shall waive the right to be heard and shall submit to entry of this order.  If Ms. Andrades is experiencing difficulty appearing remotely, she may contact the Court’s clerk, Roberto Mendoza, at (213) 633-0159, and he will arrange for her to appear via telephone. 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER

            Plaintiff Fredy Wembe (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action against Defendants Target Corporation and Manuel Quijada (collectively, “Defendants”). Now, Defendants move to compel Judith Andrades, formerly known as Judith Parada (the “Deponent”), who is Plaintiff’s daughter, to appear for a deposition and to produce documents.  This motion was personally served on the Deponent, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.)    

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 provides, “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party or a witness] . . . may make an order . . . directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)

Defendants’ counsel served the Deponent—using the name “Judith Andrades”—with a subpoena requiring her to appear for a deposition and to produce documents.  (See Declaration of Samatha Grant, ¶ 4 & Exh. B.)  The Deponent appeared for a deposition on February 26, 2024, but did not cooperate.  (See id., Exh. G.)  Although the Deponent provided documents to Plaintiff’s counsel, they were not accompanied by a proper declaration.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated February 20, 2024.)  Based upon the foregoing, Defendants’ counsel is entitled to take the deposition of Judith Andrades.

Judith Andrades filed an opposition that was not served on Defendants’ counsel.  The Court previously ordered the Clerk to file the opposition and serve Defendants’ counsel, but no reply brief is necessary because the opposition provides no good cause to deny the motion.  Ms. Andrades argues that “all pertinent documents and information have already been provided, rendering the deposition redundant and unduly burdensome.”  That is not correct.  The documents have not been provided in an admissible form—requiring Defendants’ counsel to lay the foundation during the deposition—and Defendants’ counsel is entitled to inquire as to the facts and circumstances of Plaintiff’s lawsuit. 

Judith Andrades argues that Defendants’ counsel have not been using her legal name.  However, the subpoena was issued to “Judith Andrades.”  (See id., Exh. B.)  The Deponent confirmed during the (failed) deposition that her name is “Judith Andrades.”  (See id., Exh. G, p. 73-74.) 

Judith Andrades argues that the deposition does not accommodate her minor child’s educational needs.  That is not good cause.  The deposition can be scheduled to accommodate Mr. Andrades’s child care needs.

Finally, Judith Andrades argues that Defendants’ counsel have violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 8.4, which prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation.  The Court finds no such violation.  To the contrary, Defendants’ counsel have been professional and ethical in this case.  Rather, the Court finds that Ms. Andrades has been engaged in gamesmanship to avoid participating in a deposition that may hurt her father’s case.

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel the deposition of Judith Andrades, formerly known as Judith Parada. 

            2.         The deposition shall occur on April 10, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., and shall be conducted in-person, unless Defendants’ counsel stipulates to a different date/time/location.

            3.         The Court signs Defendants’ proposed order and orders Ms. Andrades to comply with all of the rules of the deposition. 

            4.         The Court provides notice: If Ms. Andrades does not comply with the Court’s order, she may be subject to sanctions to compensate Defendants’ counsel for the costs of the failed deposition and related motions.  However, the Court will not order sanctions absent a noticed motion.

            5.         Defendants’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.