Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV14001, Date: 2024-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14001    Hearing Date: May 29, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     May 29, 2024             TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         S.J. and H.J., minors, through Nathan J. and Shari E., their guardians ad litem, v. Portola Charter Middle School, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV14001           

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION (x2)

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs S.J. and H.J., by and through their guardians ad litem Nathan Johnson and Shari Edwards.  

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for injunctive relief filed on April 27, 2022. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to offer independent study in violation of sections 51745 and 51747 of the Education Code.

Defendant moves to compel depositions for Nathan Johnson and Shari Edwards.

Tentative  RULING:

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Shari Edwards is DENIED.

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Nathan Johnson is DENIED as moot. 

            This ruling is conditioned on the payment of $60 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Deposition of Shari Edwards

            Defendant moves to compel the deposition of Shari Edwards.

Two Motions in One

            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, Defendant improperly combined two Motions to Compel Deposition into a single filing. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect, notwithstanding that one of these motions has since been mooted, as discussed infra.

            The Court therefore conditions its ruling on this motion on the payment of an additional $60 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

Legal Standard

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.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a).) Further, where production of documents is sought in connection with the deposition, the motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(b)(1).)

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 Defendant’s counsel states that the parties exchanged extensive correspondence between October 16, 2023, and December 6, 2023 to schedule the deposition of the adult Plaintiffs. (Declaration of M. Cristina Cruz ISO Mot. ¶¶ 2-24; Exhs. A-I.)  Close examination of the evidence shows,  however, that Defendant merely demanded depositions on certain dates, and, when advised that Shari Edwards would not be available before January 8, unilaterally noticed a deposition for December 6. (Cruz Decl. ¶¶ 12, 16, Exhs. G, H.) When Ms. Edwards did not appear for that deposition, this motion followed on December 13, a week later. (Id. ¶ 20.) Unilateral demands for specific deposition dates that ignore statements of unavailability do not constitute a good faith attempt at an informal resolution. Defendant has not satisfied its meet-and-confer obligations. However, in the interest of an expedient resolution of this matter, the Court will address the motion on the merits.

Analysis

            Defendant moves to compel the deposition of Shari Edwards.

            On October 16, 2023, Defendants served a notice for Shari Edwards’s deposition to occur November 1, 2023, via electronic service. (Cruz Decl. ¶ 3; Exh. A.) Plaintiffs objected to that notice on the bases that the deponent was unavailable and that the date had been unilaterally noticed. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. C.) After the insufficient meet-and-confer efforts described above, Defendant unilaterally noticed another deposition for December 6, 2023. (Id. ¶¶ 12-16; Exhs. G-H.) Plaintiff did not appear. (Id. ¶ 20.) This motion followed, but, in the interim, subsequent deposition notices were served, first for March 15, 2024, based on representations of availability. (Supplemental Declaration of M. Cristina Cruz ISO Mot. ¶¶ 4-6, Exh. M.) However, the day before that deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that the deponent was not available and would not appear. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9; Exh. L.) Following further discussion, the parties agreed on May 23, 2024, and noticed a deposition for that date. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13; Exh. O.)

            Plaintiff argues in opposition that this motion is unnecessary and mooted by the May 23 deposition. Defendant contends in reply that Plaintiff’s counsel indicated on May 20, 2024 that the deposition would not go forward on May 23 because Shari Edwards wishes to no longer serve as Guardian ad Litem. (Declaration of M. Cristina Cruz ISO Reply Exh. A.) Defendant argues that so long as she remains a named Guardian ad Litem, Ms. Edwards is a valid deponent in this action.  On May 23, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an application for an order appointing Nathan Johnson as the new guardian ad litem for Plaintiff H.J., thereby removing Ms. Edwards as guardian ad litem. That order was granted the same date. (Order for Appointment of Guardian ad Litem.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs’ argument has force, and Defendant no longer has a valid basis to pursue the deposition of Shari Edwards as a party to this action.

Sanctions

            Defendant also requests sanctions on this motion. However, as Defendant is not the prevailing party, Defendant is not entitled to sanctions.

//

Conclusion

            For the reasons above, Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Shari Edwards is DENIED.

Motion to Compel Deposition of Nathan Johnson

            Although the motion also seeks to compel the deposition of Nathan Johnson, the body of the moving papers does not address that deposition, and Plaintiffs contend that the deposition has already taken place. As the parties do not appear to have a genuine dispute regarding the deposition of Nathan Johnson, the Court therefore finds that this motion is MOOT.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Shari Edwards is DENIED.

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Nathan Johnson is MOOT.

            This ruling is conditioned on the payment of $60 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2024                          ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.