Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV11190, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11190    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: 29

Gibbons v. County of Los Angeles
23STCV11190
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant City of Los Angeles

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

On May 18, 2023, Cindy Iris Gibbons ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against County of Los Angeles (“County”), City of Los Angeles (“City”), City of West Hollywood, and Does 1 through 100 for general negligence and premises liability (dangerous condition of public property) arising from an alleged slip and fall on November 18, 2022, at or near West Willoughby Avenue, west of La Brea Avenue.

On August 4, 2023, County filed an answer.

On August 31, 2023, City filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 10.

In September 2023 and February 2024, Plaintiff filed requests to dismiss County and City of West Hollywood.

On March 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel the deposition of City. City filed an opposition on April 1, and Plaintiff filed a reply on April 8.

Trial is currently set for May 5, 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 seeks an order compelling the appearance of City’s person most qualified (“PMQ”) to appear for deposition.

On January 13, 2025, Plaintiff requested available dates for the deposition of City’s PMQ. (Ocampo Decl., ¶¶ 3-4 & Exh. 1.) On January 16, 2025, City responded and provided dates in June. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6 & Exh. 2.)

On February 18, 2025, Plaintiff replied and requested dates within a month of Plaintiff’s deposition, scheduled for March 6. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8 & Exh. 3.) City responded the same day that the PMQ was not available before June and that counsel was no longer even sure that the June dates were still available.  (Id. ¶¶ 9-10 & Exh. 4.)  In response to further correspondence, City offered dates in June and early July.  (Id., ¶¶ 11-14 & Exhs. 5-6.) 

On March 11, 2025, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of City’s PMQ for March 28.  (Id., ¶¶ 15-18 & Exh. 7.)  Plaintiff then filed this motion on March 24.

Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.  Plaintiff is certainly entitled to take the deposition of City, through its PMQ, but to obtain a court order compelling a deposition, a party must comply with the statutory requirements.  Those requirements include (but are not necessarily limited to) proof of: (1) service of a proper deposition notice; (2) absence of a valid objection; (3) the failure to the deponent to appear; and (4) a meet and confer declaration or other proof that the moving party inquired about the deponent’s failure to appear.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (a) & (b).)   Here, Plaintiff’s moving papers are entirely silent on the second, third, and fourth mandatory statutory requirements.  Indeed, Plaintiff filed this motion was filed before the noticed deposition date – and even before the last day for City to serve objections to the deposition notice.

To be sure, the Court is very concerned that City and other large, frequently sued defendants (public and private) sometimes make the unilateral decision to designate only a small number of individuals to testify as PMQs and then argue that it is “impossible” to schedule a deposition within a reasonable time.  The Civil Discovery Act provides that a party may schedule a deposition on as little as 10 days’ notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.270, subd. (a).)  Although, of course, reasonable consideration must be given to the schedules of counsel and deponents, there is no special rule that allows large defendant entities (public or private) to impose a unilateral rule that depositions of their personnel must be scheduled with advance notice of at least 90 or 120 days, or even longer.

Having said that, however, any motion to compel a deposition must comply with all applicable statutory requirements.  As Plaintiff’s motion does not do so, it is denied without prejudice. 

Conclusion

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of City’s Person Most Knowledgeable.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.