Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV21794, Date: 2025-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV21794    Hearing Date: April 30, 2025    Dept: 45

JOSE Gutierrez-rivero v. Alicante stone, inc. et al.

plaintiff jose gutierrez-rivero’s motion for proective order and defendant dal-tile et al’s motion for protective order and cross requests for sanctions

Date of Hearing:        April 30, 2025                                                 Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              45                                                                    Case No.:        24STCV21794

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jose Gutierrez-Rivero filed this action don August 27, 2024 against multiple defendants, seeking damages for injuries allegedly suffered by virtue of his exposure to silica dust released by the manufacture and grinding of stone products they manufactured or sold.   Plaintiff has served and responses have been filed by multiple defendants, although some remain to be served and/or defaulted.  Plaintiff is gravely ill and his treating physician has confirmed that he may have only six months to live.  (Krishna Decl. Paras. 7-9.)  Accordingly, all parties have a strong interest in preserving and testing his testimony through the deposition process.  

discussion

Plaintiff’s deposition was initially set to commence on December 20, 2024.  It lasted only a few minutes before defendants suspended the deposition apparently to get a protective order in place and because of a dispute over document production.   The facts surrounding the initial deposition setting and the circumstances surrounding its suspension are not clearly spelled out in either of the moving papers.   Subsequently, plaintiff’s counsel served on March 11, 2025, a notice to take and preserve plaintiff’s deposition which was set for March 19, 2025. Defendants objected to the unilaterally selected date and served a request to produce documents.   Plaintiff thereafter moved the date to March 26 and took the deposition for six hours, over defendants’ objections.  The deposition continued to March 27.  When plaintiff’s questioning was completed, defendants refused to commence their questioning, claiming that plaintiff had not produced a complete set of his medical records, as previously requested.  Both sides then filed motions for protective orders, seeking court intervention on how the deposition would be conducted and when. 

            The court makes the following findings with respect to the cross-motions for protective orders, which the court grants in part and denies in part.   It is essential that plaintiff’s deposition be completed as soon as possible given his precarious health.   At least five calendar days prior to the resumption of plaintiff’s deposition, defendants shall receive every medical record pertaining to plaintiff in plaintiff’s possession, custody or control, including but not limited to all records relating to his care from the Palmdale Regional Medical Center and Valley Presbyterian.   To the extent defendants have served requests for production of other records on plaintiff, those records must also be produced at least five calendar days prior to the resumed deposition.  Failure to produce such records prior to the resumed deposition may result in plaintiff not being able to offer his deposition at trial, or other evidentiary sanction.  Because of the number of defendants, plaintiff’s precarious health and the need to use a Spanish interpreter, cross-examination is likely to last longer than 14 hours.  The court orders that plaintiff be produced for deposition in 3 six-hour sessions, or a total of eighteen hours, approximately one week apart.  Plaintiff must be afforded reasonable breaks during the deposition, including a one-hour break mid-way through each six hour session, which shall not count against the overall time of the deposition.   Those defendants who confirm to counsel for Dal-Tile that they would like to question plaintiff at least ten days prior to the resumption of the deposition shall each be given equal time to question plaintiff.  By written agreement to be separately negotiated by defendants, any defendant can yield their time to another defendant to conduct questioning, thereby reducing the number of counsel asking questions over the course of the deposition.   The court anticipates that defendants may not actually need to use all of this time.   Defendants may not unilaterally suspend the deposition but must complete their questioning.   Any disagreement about objections and/or failures to respond can be raised with the court by appropriate motion after the deposition is completed.  If the court determines that defendant(s) or any of them are entitled to additional time for any reason, the court may order it.