Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV01866, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01866    Hearing Date: October 12, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff Priscilla Gonzalez filed this action against Defendant Dorothy D. Inc. and others.

On August 24, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for protective order for Plaintiff’s deposition of Defendant’s PMK with request for production of documents.

Upon a showing of good cause, the Court may issue a protective order to protect a party or deponent from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).)  The protective order may include directions that the deposition not be taken, be taken at a different time or place, be taken on certain specified terms and conditions, be taken by written instead of oral examination, or that the scope be limited to certain matters.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).)  “[T]he burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought.”  (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Plaintiff served a PMK deposition notice with request for documents on May 31, 2023, for a deposition on August 25, 2023.  (Opposition, Wagner Decl. ¶¶ 3, 11 & Ex. B.)  On August 24, 2023 at 9:15 a.m., Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel to “confirm the deposition of the PMQ is going forward tomorrow and where you would like the zoom link sent.”  (Motion, Waddell Decl., Ex. A; Opposition, Wagner Decl., Ex. G.)  At 9:27 a.m., Defendant’s counsel responded, “Ok.  Well, the deposition is not going forward.  My client is unavailable.”  Defendant filed this motion at 8:20 p.m. the same day.

Defendant’s “unfortunate calendaring defect wherein the request for that August 25, 2023 date to be calendared was not actually calendared” (Motion, Waddell Decl.; see also Reply at p. 3) is not good cause for a protective order.  Defendant’s counsel’s declaration is entirely conclusory and lacks any factual specificity regarding annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense that would occur due to the deposition.  (See Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 318; Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subds. (a)-(b).)

Instead, Defendant appears to ask that its objections not be deemed waived.  (See Motion at pp. 4-5; Reply at pp. 4-5.)  For an August 25, 2023 deposition, Defendant’s objections to the deposition notice and request to quash the notice were due by August 22.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subds. (a), (c).)  Defendant still has not objected to the deposition notice or request for production of documents.  (Opposition, Wagner Decl. ¶ 15.)  There is no evidence that Defendant has since produced its PMK for deposition or served a substantially compliant response to the request for production of documents.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Thus, whether viewed as a motion for protective order or a motion for relief from waiver, Defendant has not met its burden.

The motion for protective order is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted in part.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (h).)  Defendant’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions of $3,000.00 to Plaintiff within 30 days.

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 12th day of October 2023