Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: BC719909, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC719909    Hearing Date: October 24, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

CLARENCE CECIL IV DAVIS, et al.,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

CITY OF GARDENA, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: BC719909

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT SHAWNTAE LANAE BELL’S DEPOSITION ANSWERS

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

October 24, 2022

 

I.            INTRODUCTION

On August 30, 2018, Plaintiffs Clarence Cecil IV Davis and Iliyah Cecil Davis (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants City of Gardena (“City”) and Shawntae Lanae Bell (“Bell”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries arising out of a November 30, 2017 collision. On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 

On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel Bell to provide further responses to deposition questions.  Plaintiff also requests sanctions. 

On August 18, 2022, the parties attended an informal discovery conference.

On October 11, 2022, Defendants filed an opposition brief.

Plaintiff has not filed a reply brief.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control 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).)  This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (Id., subd. (b).)  The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  (Id., subd. (j).) 

III.        DISCUSSION

The Court rules on the items in dispute as follows:

Deposition Question No. 1: “Okay. And before that, where were you living?” DENY.  Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Deposition Question No. 2: “Okay. Can you name a priority higher than safety?” DENY. Vague as to safety.

Deposition Question No. 3: “Okay. Did you have the opportunity to speak with your attorney before today? I don’t want to know what was said, just whether or not you had the opportunity to speak with him?” GRANT.

Deposition Question No. 4: “Did you speak with Mr. Dumont before today? I don’t want to know about anything that was said or the content of any communications. Let me be crystal clear, I want to know about an independent fact related to that communication, which is did you, yes or no, speak to Mr. Dumont?” GRANT.

Deposition Question No. 5: “Okay. If you did speak with counsel before today, was it by phone?” GRANT.

Deposition Question No. 6: “So ever have a meeting with Mr. Dumont where there was someone else present that was not an attorney?” GRANT.

Deposition Question No. 7: “Without requesting to know anything about what was said, because I’m not allowed to know about that—that’s one thing Lou is right about—all I want to know is did you speak with your attorney at the break? Yes or no.”  GRANT.

The Court declines to impose sanctions on either party.  

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part as to Deposition Questions 3 through 7 and DENIED as to Questions 1 and 2. 

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 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.