Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV25260, Date: 2025-03-20 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 22STCV25260    Hearing Date: March 20, 2025    Dept: 29

Simonian v. City of Los Angeles
22STCV25260
Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified

Tentative

The motion to compel is granted.

The request for sanctions is granted in part.

Background

On August 4, 2022, George Stephen Simonian ("Plaintiff") filed suit against City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 25 asserting a cause of action for dangerous condition of public property arising from a trip and fall on August 26, 2020, at or near 351 East 2nd Street in Los Angeles. 

On January 4, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.

On February 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified. Defendant filed an (untimely) opposition on March 11, along with its own request for sanctions, and Plaintiff filed a reply on March 13.

Trial is currently set for April 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

As a threshold matter, the Court exercises its discretion to consider Defendant’s late filed opposition.

On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff served a notice setting the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified on 14 matters of examination for June 26, 2024. (Cohen Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4 & Exh. 1.) Defendant served untimely objections on June 24, 2024. (Id., ¶ 5 & Exh. 3.)  

After counsel met and conferred on the dates for the deposition and the matters for examination, Plaintiff served an amended notice with 2 matters of examination and a deposition date of August 20, 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 6-14 & Exh. 4.)  No objection was served, but one day before the deposition Defendant’s counsel advised that the deposition needed to be rescheduled.  (Id., ¶¶ 15-19 & Exh. 2.) 

On August 22, 2024, Plaintiff served a second amended notice setting the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified on 2 matters of examination for October 10, 2024. (Id., ¶ 22 & Exh. 5.) Plaintiff also inquired as to a deposition date for the other 14 matters of examination.  (Id., ¶¶ 23-25 & Exh. 2.)  On October 9, 2024, Defendant served untimely objections to deposition notice. (Id., ¶ 26 & Exh. 6.)

On November 22, 2024, Plaintiff served a third amended notice setting the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified on 14 matters of examination on December 18, 2024. (Id., ¶ 31 & Exh. 7.) At Defendant’s request, Plaintiff agreed to reschedule the deposition.  (Id., ¶¶ 34-37 & Exh. 2.) 

On December 19, 2024, Plaintiff served a fourth amended notice setting the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified on 14 matters of examination on January 22, 2025.  (Id., ¶ 40 & Exh. 8.)  Defendant did not object.  (Id., ¶ 40.)

The deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified on matters numbers 13 and 14 proceeded as scheduled on January 22, 2025.  (Id., ¶ 44.)  As to matters numbers 1 through 12, however, Defendant did not produce a person most qualified and instead offered deposition dates in late March and early April, after the discovery cutoff.  (Id., ¶ 41.)  The parties subsequently discussed attempting to identify earlier dates for the deposition.  (Id., ¶ 44.)

On January 23, 2025, Plaintiff served a fifth amended notice setting the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified on the 14 matters of examination on January 29, 2025.  (Id., ¶ 45 & Exh. 10.)  Defendant did not object.  (Id., ¶ 45.)

On January 29, Defendant presented the person most qualified on matters numbers 13 and 14 for a second session of the deposition, which was completed.  (Id., ¶ 46.)  No witness was provided for the other topics.  (Ibid.)  Although the parties have exchanged emails, no date has been scheduled for that deposition.  (Id., ¶¶ 47-54 & Exh. 2.)

Based on this history, Plaintiff now seeks a court order compelling Defendant to produce a person most qualified for deposition on the matters of examination identified as Nos. 1 through 12 in the deposition notices.  Plaintiff also seeks sanctions.

Defendant does not contest this history.  Rather, in its opposition, Defendant argues that there is a separate defense to Plaintiff’s claims, an impermissible variance between the Government Claims Act claim submitted by Plaintiff and the allegations of the complaint.  This may (or may not be) a significant issue, but it has nothing at all to do with this motion.  If Defendant has a dispositive motion, it should file it and obtain a ruling.  Until such time, however, that the action is dismissed or judgment entered in its favor, Defendant must comply with its obligations under the Civil Discovery Act, including the obligation to produce a person most qualified in response to a deposition notice.

Defendant also asserts that it has limited personnel available to be deposed as a person most qualified.  The Court understands this.  Counsel should always give due regard for the schedules of the opposing parties and opposing counsel – and, indeed, Plaintiff has done so.  Plaintiff has been more than reasonable in working with Defendant in attempting to schedule the deposition.  But after approximately eight months, it is time for Defendant to produce its person most qualified for deposition.

The motion is granted.

The Court turns now to sanctions.  Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, the Court must impose a monetary sanction when a motion to compel is granted, unless the opposing party acted with “substantial justification” or there are other circumstances that make the imposition of the sanction “unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)  The motion to compel is granted, Defendant has not acted with substantial justification, and the imposition of sanctions would not be unjust.  The request for sanctions is granted.

The amount of requested sanctions, however, far exceeds what is reasonable.  The Court sets sanctions in the amount of $2,860, based on eight hours of reasonable attorney time multiplied by a reasonable billing rate of $350 per hour for work on a motion of this nature, plus a $60 filing fee.  (See Cohen Decl., ¶¶ 57-58.)

Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel.

The Court ORDERS Defendant City of Los Angeles to produce a person most qualified on Matters of Examination Nos. 1-12 to appear for deposition and give testimony under oath on __________, 2025, at 10:00 am, via remote video conference technology.  Plaintiff is ordered to provide a link for the deposition at least 24 hours in advance.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Defendant City of Los Angeles to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in an amount of $2,860 to Plaintiff (through counsel) within 30 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.