Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV06978, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06978    Hearing Date: June 6, 2025    Dept: 29

Zometa v. BCPE Empire Topco, Inc.
22STCV06978
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant KNS Electric Inc.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

The request for sanctions is denied.

Background

On February 25, 2022, Ana Gloria Zometa, as successor-in-interest to Tomas A. Villalta, deceased (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against BCPE Empire Topco, Inc aka Imperial Dade; The Paper Co.; Alexis A. Salazar; KWS Electric Lighting Supply; Penske LSG Rental Co.; and Does 1 through 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident on March 6, 2020, at or near the intersection of Washington Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue in Los Angeles.

On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against the same defendants.

On March 30, 2023, BCPE Empire Topco, Inc. and Alexis Salazar filed an answer to the FAC.

On May 9, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Penske Truck Leasing Corporation as Doe 1, Penkse Logistics, LLC as Doe 2, and Penske Leasing and Rental Company as Doe 3.

On May 15 and 23, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to correct the name of Defendant The Paper Co. to Imperial Bag & Paper Co. LLC and to correct the name of Defendant Penske LSG, Rental to Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P.

On July 3, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to correct the name of Defendant KWS Electric Lighting Supply to KNS Electric, Inc.

On August 9, 2023, KNS Electric, Inc. filed an answer to the FAC.

On September 29, 2023, Imperial Bag & Paper Co. LLC filed an answer to the FAC.

Also on September 29, 2023, Penske Truck Leasing Corporation, Penske Logistics, LLC, Penske Leasing and Rental Company, and Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. filed an answer to the FAC.

On August 30, 2024, KNS Electric, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a motion for summary judgment.  That motion hearing was initially set for June 11, 2025, and was continued (on Plaintiff’s ex parte application) to October 9, 2025.

On April 18, 2025, BCPE Empire Topco, Inc. and Alexis Salazar filed amotion for summary judgment set for hearing on October 9, 2025.

On May 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified.

No opposition has been filed.

Trial is set for December 3, 2025.

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

Plaintiff has noticed the deposition of Defendant on several occasions.

On January 8, 2025, Plaintiff served a Third Amended notice setting the deposition of Defendant for February 14, 2025.  (Bakhdanyan Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. A.) Defendant had initially confirmed its availability for deposition on that date, but one day before the deposition Defendant’s counsel advised that he was not available.  (Id., ¶ 3 & Exh. B.)

Following further correspondence, on March 24, 2025, Plaintiff served a Sixth Amended notice setting the deposition of Defendant for April 10, 2025.  (Id., ¶ 3 & Exh. D.)  In the early morning of April 10, Defendant’s counsel advised that he was ill and that the deposition would need to be rescheduled.  (Id., ¶ 3 & Exh. E.) 

The parties corresponded further, but Defendant offered no new dates for the deposition.  (Id., ¶ 3 & Exh. F.) 

The motion to compel is granted.  Plaintiff noticed the deposition, Defendant did not object to the deposition notice, and Defendant did not appear for deposition.  Plaintiff need show nothing more.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.  It is made in the memorandum but it is not included in the notice of motion and motion, and no evidence to support the request is provided (whether by declaration or otherwise).

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel.

The Court ORDERS Defendant KNS Electric Inc., on June __, 2025, at 10:00 am, to produce its person most qualified to testify on the topics identified in the deposition notice served on March 24, 2025, and to produce the documents requested in the deposition notice served on March 24, 2025.  The deposition will be taken by videoconference technology.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide to counsel for all parties a link for the deposition no later than 24 hours before the deposition is scheduled to commence.

The date and time of the deposition may be modified only by (1) a further Court order or (2) an agreement in writing (including by email) by counsel for all parties.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.