Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 20STCV42104 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV42104, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42104 Hearing Date: October 12, 2022 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: October 12, 2022 TRIAL DATE: November 8, 2022

CASE: Ozelia Harris v. Pomona Unified School District, et al.

CASE NO.: 20STCV42104

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF ERIN JACKSON, JACQUELINE LIBERTO, AND REBECCA NORWOOD

MOVING PARTY: (1)(2) Plaintiff Ozelia Harris.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) (2) Defendants Pomona Unified School District; Rebecca Norwood

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for employment discrimination filed on November 3, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in retaliation and harassment against her on the basis of her use of medical leave and/or her perceived disability.

Plaintiff moves to compel the depositions of Erin Jackson, Jacqueline Liberto, and Rebecca Norwood.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Depositions of Rebecca Norwood, Jacqueline Liberto, and Monique Harris are DENIED AS MOOT.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Deposition of Rebecca Norwood

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Rebecca Norwood.

Meet and Confer

A motion to compel a deposition must include a meet and confer declaration stating facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.450(b); 2016.040.)

The declaration of Monique Harris in connection with this motion states that counsel for the parties exchanged emails on June 6, 2022. (Declaration of Monique Harris ISO June 22, 2022 Mot. Exhs 10-14.) A review of the correspondence provided shows that Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to contact Defense counsel by telephone, but received no answer. (Harris Decl. Exh. 10.) Subsequent attempts to resolve this issue were met with only marginally responsive replies. (Id. Exhs. 11-14.) In this context, the Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the statutory meet and confer requirements with respect to this motion.

Multiple Filings That are Combined Motions

Plaintiff has filed two motions to compel appearance at a deposition, one dated June 22, 2022, and the other dated September 16, 2022. Both motions seek to compel the deposition of multiple parties.

Multiple motions should not be combined into a single filing.¿(See¿Govt. Code,¿§ 70617(a)(4) [setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing];¿see¿also¿Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011)¿[“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”].)

Here, the June 22, 2022 Motion seeks to compel the depositions of Erin Jackson, Jacqueline Liberto, and Rebecca Norwood. However, the September 16, 2022 motion seeks to compel the deposition of Erin Jackson and Jacqueline Liberto, only. Not only are these motions partially redundant, but each improperly seeks to compel compliance with multiple discover requests. The Court will therefore only consider the June 22, 2022 motion with respect to Rebecca Norwood, and will further order Plaintiff to pay an additional $60.00 in filing fees to have the motion with respect to Jacqueline Liberto heard within 10 days of the date of this order. The Court’s ruling on the additional motion with respect to Jacqueline Liberto is conditioned on Plaintiff’s payment of these fees.

Analysis

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (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, 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.”

In the moving papers, Plaintiff admits that Rebecca Norwood appeared for deposition on June 3, 2022, and that Defendant’s counsel subsequently terminated the deposition. (Harris Decl. ¶ 6.) Section 2025.450 permits a motion to compel a deposition only when a party has failed to appear for a deposition. If Plaintiff wishes to continue the deposition of Rebecca Norwood for the statutorily-allotted time, Plaintiff may notice the deposition as required by statute and, if necessary, move to compel for that new deposition date. Defendant is similarly at liberty to move to compel answers or further testimony, or to seek any other relief as permitted by law.

Conclusion:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition is DENIED AS MOOT.

Motion to Compel Deposition of Jacqueline Liberto

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Jacqueline Liberto.

Meet and Confer

Plaintiff’s counsel does not provide any evidence that the parties met and conferred after Defendant served objections to the noticed deposition. Plaintiff has therefore failed to comply with the statutory meet and confer requirements. Nevertheless, the Court will address the motion on the merits.

Analysis

Plaintiff states that the deposition of Jacqueline Liberto was noticed for July 21, 2022 and the witness served with a subpoena “on July 11th and July 13th.” (Declaration of Monique Harris ISO September 16, 2022 Mot. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff has not produced copies of the deposition notice or subpoena. Defendant objected on the grounds that the responding party was unavailable and the deposition subpoena and notice was untimely and therefore ineffective. (Harris Decl. Exh. 1.)

In opposition, Defendant does not attempt to defend its objections, but instead argues that because Plaintiff did not agree to a proposed stipulation confirming the deposition on October 7, 2022, and instead posed “irrelevant and confusing questions,” Plaintiff is merely seeking to harass Defendant and its counsel. (See Declaration of Dominic Quiller ISO Opp. Exh. I.) Defendant also raises irrelevant arguments concerning the merits of the facts in this case. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff is required to pay deposition fees, without reference to any law or agreement requiring payment of any fees. These arguments are not persuasive. Defendant has produced an email that does not show an intent to harass, but rather an attempt to seek clarification from Defense counsel regarding whether it represents the deponent at issue. (See Quiller Decl. Exh. I.) Defendant’s other arguments are entirely without support or relevance to this matter.

However, of greater importance is the supplemental declaration of Attorney Quiller, which states that the declaration of Jacqueline Liberto took place on October 7, 2022. (Supplemental Declaration of Dominic Quiller ISO Opp. ¶ 3.) This motion is therefore moot.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel the Deposition of Jacqueline Liberto is DENIED AS MOOT.

Motion to Compel Deposition of Erin Jackson

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Erin Jackson.

Meet and Confer

Analysis

Plaintiff states that the deposition of Erin Jackson was noticed for July 21, 2022 and the witness served with a subpoena “on July 11th and July 13th.” (Declaration of Monique Harris ISO September 16, 2022 Mot. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff has not produced copies of the deposition notice or subpoena. Defendant objected on the grounds that the responding party was unavailable and the deposition subpoena and notice was untimely and therefore ineffective. (Harris Decl. Exh. 1.)

In opposition, Defendant does not attempt to defend its objections, but instead raises the same arguments stated above in connection with the deposition of Jacqueline Liberto. For the reasons stated above, these arguments are not persuaded. However, the Supplemental Declaration of Dominic Quiller states that Ms. Jackson appeared for the deposition, which was cancelled by Plaintiff’s counsel due to the presence of Attorney Stephanie Joseph. (Supplemental Declaration of Dominic Quiller ¶¶ 4-7.) This motion is therefore also moot.

Request for Sanctions Hearing

Defendant requests that the Court set a hearing date for sanctions against Plaintiff and her Counsel. The Court declines to address the merits of such a request in the context of a motion to compel deposition.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Erin Jackson is DENIED AS MOOT.

CONCLUSION:

For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Depositions of Rebecca Norwood, Jacqueline Liberto, and Monique Harris are DENIED AS MOOT.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2022 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.