Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 20STCV44732, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44732    Hearing Date: April 29, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On February 20, 2025, Plaintiff Xing Wu filed a motion to compel Defendant Roseann Frazee’s further deposition testimony and responses to nine questions.

If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).)

Most of Defendant’s counsel’s objections are improper.  If the questions call for speculation or are ambiguous, the testimony may not be admissible evidence, but there is no basis to instruct the witness not to answer.

Question 1:  “Can you give me an estimate of whether family law takes up more than half your practice?”  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is granted.

Question 2:  “Is $15,000 a typical amount that Frazee Law Group requires?”  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is granted.

Question 3:  “Is it possible that Mr. Wu gets the English language confused at times?”  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is granted.

Question 4:  “Based on your communications with Mr. Wu, it’s your testimony that he’s – he never seems confused about what you are saying to him?”  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is granted.

Question 5:  “So this was the only case that you were getting paid for at the time, correct?”  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is granted.

Question 6:  “Were you having trouble paying your rent in early 2020?”  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is granted.

Question 7:  “Isn’t it true that when my office reached out to you to coordinate the transfer you informed me you were too busy to do it?”  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is granted.

Question 8:  “Again, is it normal in your practice to have third party witnesses prepare their own declarations?”  Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is granted.

Question 9:  “Was that statement true [a text message from Defendant to Plaintiff saying that she needed money to pay staff and office rent]?” Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is granted.

The motion is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to appear for a second deposition, limited to the above topics, within 30 days.

The request for sanctions of $1,600 is GRANTED.

Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff’s added costs and attorney’s fees for the second deposition as well as the sanctions within 30 days after the deposition takes place.  (See Motion at p. 2.)

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.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 29th day of April 2025