Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 17-920613, Date: 2022-12-01 Tentative Ruling

Motion No. 1:  Motion to Compel deposition of Anton Handal and Handal & Associates’ Person Most Knowledgeable

The motion by cross-defendants Wymont Services Limited, James R. Lindsey, William Buck Johns and Marc van Antro (collectively, “Wymont”)for an order compelling Anton Handal and Handal & Associates’ Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) to appear at deposition and to produce at deposition the documents requested in the notice of deposition is GRANTED.

CCP §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, . . , 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 . . . 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 . . . described in the deposition notice.”

CCP §2025.450(b) provides, “A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following: (1)   The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

Wymont’s motion shows that on 8/18/22, notices of deposition with a request for production of documents were served on Anton Handal and Handal & Associates’ Person Most Knowledgeable. (Exhibits 2 and 3 to Caruso declaration, respectively.)  Handal and the PMK did not appear for their deposition.  Following a meet and confer, the instant motion was filed.  Wymont’s motion shows good cause for the request for production.  Handal advises the Court in its Opposition that the issues of this motion have been resolved but Wymont has not withdrawn its motion. 

In the Opposition by Handal & Associates, Inc., it asks for an order allowing it to complete James Lindsey’s deposition as well as to take the deposition of Wymont’s PMK.  This request for additional discovery is not before the Court.  The Court denies this request for additional discovery.

In its Reply, Wymont asks for an order compelling a written response to the notice of deposition, without objection, as opposed to what was requested in the notice of motion which was for an order compelling only “production” of documents.   This requested relief was not stated in the notice of motion.  The Court denies this request.

Accordingly, Anton Handal is ordered to appear for deposition, and produce documents at the deposition, pursuant to the notice of deposition attached as Exhibit 2 to the declaration of Jason Caruso, on December 19, 20 or 21, 2022.  The PMK is ordered to appear for deposition, and produce documents at the deposition, pursuant to the notice of deposition attached as Exhibit 3 to the declaration of Jason Caruso, on December 19, 20 or 21, 2022.

Motion No. 2:  Motion for Protective Order and To Compel Deposition of Handal & Associates’ Expert Witness

The motion by cross-defendants Wymont Services Limited, James R. Lindsey, William Buck Johns and Marc van Antro (collectively, “Wymont”)for a protective order to eliminate duplicative designated experts and to compel Anton Handal and Handal & Associates (“Handal”) to produce their experts for deposition, and to produce documents three business days before deposition, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.  The motion for protective order is DENIED and the motion to compel the two experts’ depositions is GRANTED.

Although the Opposition indicates a resolution of the protective order issues by withdrawing Edith Matthai, Esq. as an expert, Wymont still seeks a protective order.

"The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. The protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: . . . (6) that a party or a side reduce the list of employed or retained experts designated by that party or side under subdivision (b) of Section 2034.210.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.250(b)(6).) 

MP contends that since they are identically credentialled lawyers, there is no reason one expert can testify on all subjects.  MP cites South Bay Chevrolet v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.  (1999) 72 Cal.App.4t6h 861 suggesting that the trial court should bar a second expert in the “same field of expertise.” (Mtn at 9:14-16).  However, South Bay was a case where the two experts were in the same field and one would be covering the same ground as the other.  That is not the case here as the designations for Matthai and Pierce show they are going to testify on different subjects with Matthai testifying on standard of care and the complaint issues and Pierce testifying on the cross-complaint issues.  (Exh 8 to Caruso Decl. – ROA 1023).  Accordingly, the Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.

With regard to the portion of the motion seeking an order compelling the depositions of Edith Matthai, Esq. and John Shea Pierce, Esq., Handal does not contest Wymont’s entitlement to take the expert depositions. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED and Handal is ordered to produce the experts for deposition within 15 days and to produce documents three business days before the deposition in response to the requests for production attached to the notices of deposition attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 to the Caruso Decl. at ROA 1023.

In the Opposition by Handal & Associates, Inc., it asks for an order allowing it to take the deposition of John Sheller.  This request for additional discovery is not before the Court.  The Court denies this request for additional discovery.

In its Reply, Wymont makes an additional request that Handal be ordered to provide written responses without objection to the requests for production of documents attached to the deposition notice.  This requested relief was not stated in the notice of motion.  The Court denies this request.

The Court orders Wymont to give notice of this ruling.