Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV15765, Date: 2025-02-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV15765 Hearing Date: February 7, 2025 Dept: 29
Williams v. Union Pacific
Railroad Company
23STCV15765
Defendant’s Motion to Quash Deposition Notice or, in the Alternative, for a
Protective Order
Tentative
The motion is denied.
Background
On July
6, 2023, Ryan D. Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Union Pacific
Railroad Company (“Defendant”) for negligence arising out of an incident on
July 26, 2022, in which Plaintiff alleges he was injured working on a train.
On
August 14, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
On
December 18, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to quash a deposition notice or,
in the alternative, for a protective order.
Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 24, and Defendant filed a reply
on January 31.
LEGAL
STANDARD
“Any
party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with Article 2
(commencing with Section 2025.210) waives any error or irregularity unless that
party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity
at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is
scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney
or party on whom the deposition notice was served.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd.
(a).)
“In
addition to serving this written objection, a party may also move for an order
staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet
and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
The taking of the deposition is stayed pending the determination of this
motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410,
subd. (c).)
DISCUSSION
Defendant
contends the Plaintiff seeks a second deposition of Defendant’s person most
qualified, which is duplicative, unduly burdensome and harassing. Defendant
argues that it already produced Mark Pollan as its PMQ for testimony concerning
locomotive cameras and Plaintiff’s new request seeks duplicative testimony.
In
the alternative, Defendant requests that a possible deposition be limited to
prevent duplicative questioning on the areas already covered in the deposition
of Mr. Pollan as PMQ.
The
Court reviews the two notices for person most qualified depositions.
The
Fourth Amended Notice for Deposition, for which Mr. Pollas testified as PMQ,
sets out the following categories:
A.
Whether
there was an inward facing camera in the locomotive that Plaintiff was
operating on the date of INCIDENT.
B.
Whether
the inward facing camera in the locomotive that Plaintiff was operating on the
date of INCIDENT was functioning.
C.
What
happened to the video, obtained on the date of the INCIDENT, from the inward
facing camera in the locomotive that Plaintiff was operating.
D.
Whether
the video from the inward facing camera in the locomotive that Plaintiff was
operating on the date of INCIDENT was lost or destroyed.
E.
Why
the video from the inward facing camera on the locomotive Plaintiff was
operating on the date of the INCIDENT does not exist.
F.
Why
the inward facing camera in the locomotive that Plaintiff was operating on the
date of INCIDENT was not functioning.
G.
When
the inward facing camera in the locomotive that Plaintiff was operating on the
date of INCIDENT stopped functioning prior to the date of this incident.
H.
Why
the locomotive Plaintiff was operating on the date of INCIDENT was put into
service for Plaintiff to use when the inward facing camera was not functioning.
I.
Whether
putting the locomotive Plaintiff was operating on the date of INCIDENT into
service with a non-functioning inward facing camera violated any federal
regulations.
J.
Whether
putting the locomotive Plaintiff was operating on the date into service on the
date of INCIDENT with a non-functioning inward facing camera violated any UPRR
rules or regulations.
The
new Notice for Deposition (the one at issue in this motion) sets out the
following categories:
A.
The
identity of the individual who performed the DOWNLOAD that was retrieved after
the INCIDENT from the hard drive of the Locomotive Data Acquisition Recording
(“LDAR”) system on Locomotive 5778.
B.
How
the DOWNLOAD was conducted.
C.
The
identity of the individual who accessed and inspected the DOWNLOAD from
Locomotive 5778 after it was delivered to Omaha, Nebraska in a Pelican case.
D.
Why
there are gaps in the Locomotive Digital Video Recording (“LDVR”) system on
Locomotive 5778.
E.
The
meaning of the codes on the visual inspection reports and mechanical
inspections of the LDAR and LDVR systems on Locomotive 5778.
F.
What
the raw DOWNLOAD of the LDAR and LDVR systems indicate about why the video
recording system on Locomotive 5778 was malfunctioning leading up to the date
of the INCIDENT.
G.
How
the LabTech software records and transcribes video data on the LDAR and LDVR
systems.
Defendant asserts that the
new deposition notice is duplicative, harassing, and unreasonably
cumulative. Plaintiff argues that the
new notice seeks information on different topics, including some that Mr.
Pollan could not testify regarding during his deposition as PMQ.
The Court has reviewed the
evidence and the argument from both sides.
The motion is denied. The new
deposition notice identifies topics that are sufficiently different from the
prior notice as to permit the deposition to go forward.
For
the same reasons, Defendant’s alternative request for a protective order is
denied.
The Court notes, however,
that Plaintiff cannot use this new deposition as an opportunity to ask the same
questions to the Defendant’s PMQ at the second deposition that were already
asked and answered by Mr. Pollan at the first deposition. But Plaintiff can ask different questions
within the scope of the new topics, and Plaintiff can ask questions within the
scope of the new topics that were asked but not previously answered by Mr.
Pollan as PMQ.
CONCLUSION
The
Court DENIES Defendant’s
motion to quash the deposition notice or, in the alternative, for a protective
order.
Moving Party is to give
notice.