Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV22293, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22293    Hearing Date: August 8, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On June 12, 2020, plaintiff Emma Galstyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff alleges that on or about June 6, 2019, she was a passenger on Defendant’s bus.  Plaintiff was sitting immediately behind the bus driver when two passengers started verbal altercations and physically fighting with another passenger. The bus driver did not stop the bus but continued driving it. Plaintiff attempted to move out of the way of the passengers fighting and exit the bus, but one or more of the passengers fighting fell on her, causing her to sustain severe and permanent injuries.

Trial is currently scheduled for August 22, 2022.  Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to: (1) compel Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) and (2) extend the discovery cut-off date.  The Court first discusses the merits of Plaintiff’s motion to compel before ruling on whether discovery should be re-opened.

A.   Motion to Compel Defendant’s PMK

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)  A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)  The party served with a deposition notice waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).) 

On April 22, 2022, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Defendant’s PMK.  (Motion, Ex. B.)  An amended notice was served on May 16, 2022, scheduling the deposition for May 19, 2022.  (Ex. D.)  On May 19, 2022, Defendant served objections to the deposition notice.  (Ex. E.)  Defendant also produced a PMK to testify on the preservation of video recordings on the bus in effect at the time of the incident and for the five years before the incident, but no other topic.  Defendant has since agreed to produce another PMK to only testify on safety regulations governing passenger safety when altercations between passengers occur during a bus’s operation.

The discovery at issue in this motion concerns Defendant’s PMK testimony on the remaining categories identified in Plaintiff’s deposition notice, including Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding: (1) regulating passenger safety during passenger altercations, (2) preservation of video recordings on the bus, (3) investigations of accidents that occur on the bus, (3) disciplinary actions taken against the bus driver, Mark Donougher, as a result of the incident, (4) inspection, maintenance, and repair of the radio of the bus in effect at the time of the incident, (5) inspection, maintenance, and repair of the operative cameras on the bus,  (6) training provided to bus drivers, and (7) the facts and circumstances surrounding the investigation into and related to the incident.  (Motion, 11:6-24.) 

Defendant argues that the parties agreed that only two PMK depositions would go forward and that Plaintiff is attempting to renege on previously-made agreements on the scope of discovery.  The Court notes that on page 2 of Plaintiff’s ex parte application dated May 12, 2022, and page 2 of Plaintiff’s ex parte application dated May 13, 2022, Plaintiff represents that Defendants offered to designated two PMK deponents who “will essentially offer the same substantive testimony” as Lilian Ford (“Ford”), a former supervisor employed by Defendant.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff misunderstood the scope of Ford’s testimony when this offer was made and that Defendant only offered two deponents.  This is unpersuasive given that Plaintiff had served its PMK deposition notice on April 22, 2022, with an original deposition date of May 4, 2022 and no objections were made until May 19, 2022, the day the deposition was supposed to occur.  And, even if there was a misunderstanding, the Court finds that some of Plaintiff’s requested information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is therefore, discoverable.   Therefore, the Court rules on Plaintiff’s motion to compel as follows:

Category No. 3 (policies and procedures re: investigation of accidents, including review board meetings): GRANT.  Defendant offers no facts justifying its objection to this category of testimony on the grounds of attorney-client and work product privileges.  Whether an investigation was made and what any investigation concluded may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding Defendant’s bus driver’s duty of care and any possible breach. 

Category No. 4 (policies and procedures re: disciplinary actions against Donougher, the bus driver): GRANT. 

Category No. 5 (policies and procedures re: inspection, maintenance, and repair of the bus radio): DENY.

Category No. 6 (policies and procedures re: inspection, maintenance, and repair of any operative cameras): DENY.

Category No. 7 (Any and all policies regarding training provided to the MTA bus drivers in effect at the time of the Incident): DENY as overbroad. 

Category No. 8 (the facts and circumstances surrounding the investigation into and related to the incident): GRANT.

Request for Production No. 10 (all documents relating to any disciplinary action taken against the bus driver as a result of the incident): GRANT.

Request for Production No. 11 (all documents relating to the vehicle driven by the bus driver): DENY, overbroad.

Request for Production No. 12 (all documents relating to disciplinary action taken against the bus driver in the five years preceding the incident): DENY, no claims of negligent hiring.

Request for Production No. 14 (any notes, memoranda, recordings, writings of any kind related to board or disciplinary meetings/hearings involving this incident): GRANT.

B.   Motion to Extend Discovery

Plaintiff filed this motion to extend the discovery cut-off on July 13, 2022.   Trial was previously scheduled for July 19, 2022, but continued to August 22, 2022 to allow Plaintiff to have this motion heard.  Plaintiff argues the discovery cut-off should be extended so that Plaintiff may compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK and the production of documents. 

On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.  This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)  

The court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity and the reasons for the discovery, (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier, (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

A motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK was filed earlier on June 8, 2022, after efforts to depose a former supervisor failed.  The Court finds Plaintiff has acted diligently in pursuing the evidence sought and that allowing the deposition of Defendant’s PMK will not prejudice Defendant.  Further this case is only a little over two years old and a brief continuance of the trial date to permit this discovery will not cause any detriment to either party.  Accordingly, trial is continued to September 22, 2022.  Discovery is reopened only for the deposition of Defendant’s PMK as outlined above. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.