Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV28134, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28134    Hearing Date: February 21, 2025    Dept: 29

Reese v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
21STCV28134
Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiffs Kenny Reese and Michele Bias

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On July 30, 2021, Kenny Reese and Michele Bias (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), John Doe, Adrienne Lombard, Cynthia Lombard, and Does 1 through 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident on August 2, 2019.

On September 26, 2022, Uber filed an answer.

On January 17, 2023, Plaintiffs named Marco Martinez Aguilar (“Defendant”) as John Doe.

On August 8, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.

On June 20, 2024, Uber filed a cross-complaint against Adrienne Lombard, Cynthia Lombard, and Roes 1 through 10.

Adrienne Lombard and Cynthia Lombard settled with Plaintiffs.  On October 7, 2024, the Court determined that the settlement was a good faith settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.  Subsequently, Plaintiffs dismissed the settling defendants, and Uber dismissed its cross-complaint.

On January 22, 2025, Defendant filed this motion to compel the depositions of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed an opposition (and a request for sanctions) on February 6, and Defendant filed a reply on February 13.

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 … 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 2025.410, subdivision (a), 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 of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(a) 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.”

Any such motion to compel must show good cause for the production of documents and, when a deponent has failed to appear, the motion must be accompanied “by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Id., subd. (b).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610 provides, in part:

“(a) Once any 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.

(b) 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.”

Discussion

Plaintiffs were deposed in this litigation on July 10, 2023 and July 11, 2023. (Willner Decl., ¶ 9.) At that time, Defendant had not yet appeared in this action.

On December 18, 2024, Defendant noticed a second deposition of Plaintiffs for January 14, 2025 and January 15, 2025. (Id., ¶ 10; see also Exh. E.) Plaintiffs refused to appear, arguing (among other things) that they have already appeared for deposition, and Defendant delayed in seeking the depositions and have failed to show good cause for the second depositions.

As a general matter, the “one deposition rule” – codified in Code of Civil Procedure section

2025.610 – bars a second deposition of a party absent a showing of good cause (or stipulation of the parties). But there is more to section 2025.610 than this general rule. By its plain terms, section 2025.610 bars the taking of a second deposition by any party who noticed the first deposition or who was “served with a deposition notice” for the first deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendant was not a party to the litigation at the time of the first depositions of Plaintiffs. Presumably for that reason, the notices for Plaintiff’s first depositions were not served on Defendant. (Willner Decl., Exh. D.) Accordingly, section 2025.610 does not apply here to bar a second deposition.

Defendant may notice and take the depositions of Plaintiffs as of right. He need not show good cause or explain, in advance, what questions he will ask. Of course, in the event that the deposition is conducted in bad faith manner or in a way that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs may at that point seek appropriate relief. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.470.)

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

Defendant does not seek sanctions.

As the motion is granted, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Finally, the Court notes that Defendant filed one motion to compel two separate depositions.  Defendant should have filed two separate motions.  Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Thus, Defendant is ordered to pay one additional filing fee to the Clerk of the Court and to file proof of payment by no later than March 10, 2025.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel the depositions of Kenny Reese and Michele Bias.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Kenny Reese to appear for deposition, to give testimony under oath, and to produce the documents requested in the deposition notice, on March __, 2025, at 10:00 am, by remote video conference.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Michele Bias to appear for deposition, to give testimony under oath, and to produce the documents requested in the deposition notice, on March __, 2025, at 10:00 am, by remote video conference.

The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide link for the depositions to all counsel at least 48 hours in advance.

The Court ORDERS Defendant to pay an additional filing fee of $60 to the Clerk of the Court and to file proof of payment with the Court by no later than March 10, 2025

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.