Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV47761, Date: 2023-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47761    Hearing Date: October 5, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE 

Defendant’s motion for leave to take the subsequent deposition is GRANTED. 

Legal Standard 

Once a party has taken the deposition of any natural person, including that of a party to the action, neither the party who gave, nor any other party who has been served with a deposition notice pursuant to Section 2025.240 may take a subsequent deposition of that deponent.  (Code Civ. Proc. 2025.610 subd. (a).) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), for good cause shown, the court may grant leave to take a subsequent deposition, and the parties, with the consent of any deponent who is not a party, may stipulate that a subsequent deposition be taken. (Code Civ. Proc. 2025.610(b).) A party makes a showing of good cause for discovery where such party shows the relevance of the information sought but also that the discovery is material to the issues in the case. (Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 587.)

Discussion 

This action involves claims of personal injury arising out of a fall while trying to board a bus on December 13, 2018. (Hunter Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant’s prior counsel, Richard Canada, initially took Plaintiff’s deposition on April 7, 2022 and such deposition was taken 3.5 years after the incident and 1.5 years after the lawsuit was filed. (Id.) Counsel questioned Plaintiff about whether she obtained any recommendations for surgery and/or intended to proceed with surgery.  (Id.) Plaintiff’s testimony was vague on this topic and Plaintiff never indicated an interest in surgery. (Id.) Plaintiff stated during her deposition testimony that she was going to keep her options open. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-5 and Exhibit A.)

Plaintiff underwent surgery after the deposition which consisted of an invasive treatment where Plaintiff underwent a bilateral decompression surgery with placement of stabilization device at L4-5 on September 23, 2022, and Plaintiff underwent an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at C4-5 and C5-6 on March 10, 2023.  (Id., ¶ 7.)  A lien was billed in the amount of $557,318.59 as to Plaintiff’s surgeries.  (Id.)  Defendant did not learn of Plaintiff’s surgeries until recently and has issued a substantial amount of written discovery to Plaintiff to evaluate her claimed damages.  (Id.)  Counsel for Defendant states that Plaintiff’s discovery responses were vague, evasive, and not helpful to evaluate Plaintiff’s claimed injuries and residual limitations. (Id., ¶ 9 and Exhibits B-C.)  While Defendant can generate a third set of discovery, counsel for Defendant states that a second deposition will speed up the process and minimize inconvenience to all parties. (Id., ¶ 11.) 

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion.  At the hearing on September 25, Plaintiff requested a continuance, which the Court granted.

The Court finds that Defendant has made a showing of good cause justifying a subsequent deposition of Plaintiff.  The deposition will be limited to (1) treatment occurring after the deposition on April 7, 2022; and (2) any other facts occurring after April 7, 2022, that relate to Plaintiff’s claims for damages in this matter.  The deposition will be limited to 2.5 hours of time (excluding breaks).

Conclusion 

Defendant’s motion is granted.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to appear for further deposition and answer questions on a date to be arranged by counsel within 30 days of notice of this order.  The further deposition is limited to 2.5 hours (excluding breaks).  Questioning is limited to the following topics: (1) treatment occurring after the deposition on April 7, 2022; and (2) any other facts occurring after April 7, 2022, that relate to Plaintiff’s claims for damages in this matter.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.