Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV49503, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49503    Hearing Date: March 4, 2025    Dept: 29

Mendoza v. Rothstein
20STCV49503
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Ryde, Inc.

Tentative

The motion to compel is denied without prejudice.

Background

On December 28, 2020, Alfredo Mendoza (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Rhonda Rothstein, Irshaad Tarr, and Does 1 through 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident on January 9, 2019 at or near the intersection of Blanchard Street and Eastern Avenue in Los Angeles.

On March 26, 2021, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Ryde, Inc. (“Defendant”) as Doe 1.

On June 1, 2021, Rhoda Rothstein filed an answer to the complaint.

On July 30, 2021, Irshaad Tarr filed an answer to the complaint.

On November 8, 2022, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.

On January 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified.  Defendant filed an opposition on February 19, and Plaintiff filed a reply on February 25.

Legal Standard

“Any party may obtain discovery … by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)  Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.210 through 2025.280 provide the requirements for (among other things) what must be included in a deposition notice, when and where depositions may be taken, and how and when the notice must be served. 

“The service of a deposition notice … is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

Section 2025.230 provides: “If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested.  In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.” 

Section 2025.410 requires any party to serve a written objection at least three days before the deposition if the party contends that a deposition notice does not comply with the provisions of sections 2025.210 through 2025.280.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).)

Section 2025.450 provides:

“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.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)  The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, “or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents … by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”  (Id., subd. (b)(2).)  The motion must also “set forth specific facts showing cause” for the production of documents.  (Id., subd. (b)(1).) 

When a motion to compel is granted, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) 

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Discussion

After some prior efforts to schedule the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified (“PMQ”), Plaintiff noticed Defendant’s deposition for January 17, 2025.  (Massaband Decl., ¶¶ 3-4 & Exhs. B-C.) Defendant did not appear.  (Id., ¶¶ 5-6 & Exh. D.)

There is no evidence in the record that Plaintiff inquired about Defendant’s nonappearance before filing this motion.  Plaintiff’s counsel attaches email correspondence with Defendant’s counsel about the deposition, but the latest email is dated January 10, 2025, one week before the deposition.  (Id., ¶ 7 & Exh. E.)

When a deponent fails to appear for deposition, a motion to compel, must “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or … by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450 (b)(2).)  No such declaration is included in the moving papers.

Under the Civil Discovery Act, Plaintiff plainly has the right to take the deposition of Defendant.  But to obtain a court order for the deposition, Plaintiff must satisfy the applicable statutory motion requirements.  Plaintiff has not done so.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

In light of the above, the Court need not reach, and does not reach, the contested issue of whether service of the deposition notice was proper.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.