Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 20STCV35068, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV35068    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On September 14, 2020, Plaintiffs Jane HA Doe, Jane TG Doe, Jane RM Doe, Jane JR Doe, and Jane JN Doe (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”), Alice Ballard-Treptow, and Joyce Johnson (collectively, “Defendants”).

On July 26, 2022, the Court granted LAUSD’s motion for leave to perform mental examinations of Plaintiffs.

On July 28, 2022, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference, which seemingly resolved the discovery disputes.  The parties agreed that the deposition of RM would take place remotely on August 24, 2022, and the depositions of JN and JR would take place no later than August 30, 2022, by Zoom if the deponent so elected.  The parties tentatively settled this case at the end of July 2022, conditioned on the completion of the mental examinations and depositions.  (Preciado IME Decl. ¶ 3; Preciado Depo. Decl. ¶ 4.)

On December 6, 2022, Defendant filed motions to compel JN’s and RM’s mental examinations and a motion to compel RM’s depositions.

A jury trial is currently set for February 21, 2023.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL MENTAL EXAMINATIONS

Prior to the Court’s July 26, 2022 order granting leave to perform mental examinations of Plaintiffs, the parties agreed that the examinations would be conducted by Kimberley Dawn Lakes, Ph.D.  The motion asserted that the mental examinations will be conducted at a time determined by Plaintiffs’ and Dr. Lakes’s availability and at a place to be determined based on Plaintiffs’ convenience.

According to Defendants, Plaintiffs’ counsel has not provided dates of JN’s and RM’s availability for mental examinations.  (Preciado IME Decl. ¶ 5.)  According to Plaintiffs’ counsel, the only correspondence has been an email on November 23, 2022, claiming that JN’s IME cannot go forward until the depositions are complete.  (Carrillo JN IME Decl. ¶ 7.)  Counsel never received phone calls or emails requesting dates for RM’s IME.  (Carrillo RM IME Decl. ¶ 7.)  Plaintiffs’ counsel also has not received a notice of JN’s or RM’s IMEs.  (Carrillo JN IME Decl. ¶ 9; Carrillo RM IME Decl. ¶ 9.)

JN is indigent and does not own a car; it would take her approximately three hours each way to take the bus from her home in Los Angeles to Dr. Lakes’s office in Lake Forest.  (Carrillo JN IME Decl. ¶ 10.)  RM lives in Palmdale, California, and it would take her approximately six hours and twenty minutes each way to drive to meet with Dr. Lakes in Lake Forest.  (Carrillo RM IME Decl. ¶ 10.)  Plaintiffs’ counsel has therefore requested that the IMEs occur near JN’s or RM’s homes, or via Zoom.  (Carrillo JN IME Decl. ¶ 10; Carrillo RM IME Decl. ¶ 10.)  Dr. Lakes has already conducted at least one examination of another plaintiff in this case by Zoom.  (Carrillo JN IME Decl. ¶ 10; Carrillo RM IME Decl. ¶ 10.)  On December 8, 2022, Defendants stated that they could not agree to remote IMEs.  (Carrillo JN IME Decl., Ex. D; Carrillo RM IME Decl., Ex. C.)

In reply, Defendants now state that they agree to conduct the IMEs closer to Los Angeles for JN and closer to Palmdale for RM.  (Preciado IME Reply Decl. ¶ 27.)

The motions are GRANTED.  Plaintiffs JN and RM are ordered to appear for their IMEs within 7 days.  Defendants are ordered to complete the IMEs in or near JN’s and RM’s locations, and at a place to be determined based on Plaintiffs’ convenience, as Defendants represented in the motion for leave to perform the mental examinations.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS

If a party to the action fails to appear for examination without making a proper objection, the party noticing the deposition may move to compel the deponent’s attendance and testimony.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 20205.450, subd. (a).)

According to Defendants, from September 2022 through early December 2022, they attempted to obtain RM’s availability for a deposition, but Plaintiffs’ counsel has not provided a date.  (Preciado Depo. Decl. ¶ 5.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that RM is willing to be deposed, but she is out of the country from December 16 to December 28, 2022, and counsel will be out of the country until January 7, 2023.  (Carrillo RM Depo. Decl. ¶ 7.)  RM has therefore proposed January 11 or 13, 2023 for her deposition.  (Carrillo RM Depo. Decl. ¶ 7.)  Defendants argue that those dates are “unworkable” due to the upcoming deadline for discovery.  (RM Reply at p. 3.)  However, they also request that the Court order RM to appear for deposition within 15 days.  (RM Motion at pp. 3, 5-6; RM Reply at p. 3.)  Fifteen days from the original hearing date for this motion was January 13, 2023.  RM’s proposed dates are therefore not “unworkable”; rather, they are reasonable before the February 21, 2023 trial date, and have already passed by the time this motion is actually heard.

The motion to compel RM’s deposition is GRANTED.  Plaintiff RM is ordered to appear for her deposition within 7 days.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

         Dated this 7th day of February 2023