On 02/15/2018 EDDIE JONES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ARMANDO FEDERICO REYES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, MARK C. KIM and DENNIS J. LANDIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****4130
02/15/2018
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
MARK C. KIM
DENNIS J. LANDIN
JONES EDDIE
DOES 1 - 25
BARRIOS DANIEL
CITY LOGISTICS & TRANSPORTATION MATTER
REYES ARMANDO FEDERICO
SMITH MARC L.
AZIZI DANIEL ESQ.
YAGHOUBTIL FARID
GADDINI CHRISTOFFER M.
JOHNSON JERRI LYNN ESQ.
BAER KARLA COTTIS
PAPPAS NICHOLAS JAMES
7/8/2019: Separate Statement
7/8/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF RONALD R. HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
7/25/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION)
8/21/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees
9/3/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE TO CONTINUE TRIAL TO ALLOW HEARING OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1/8/2020: Proof of Service by Mail
2/13/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. TWO FOR ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, QUESTIONS & ARGUMENT RE NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, ETC.
2/13/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. THREE FOR ORDER PRECLUDING REPTILE OR GOLDEN RULE TYPE STATEMENTS
3/17/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/17/2020
4/7/2020: Other - - PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COPIES
8/10/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM THE THUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, TO DEFENDANT ARMANDO FEDERICO REYES ADMITTED AND CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED;
8/10/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE;
8/10/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, TO DEFENDANT CITY LOGISTICS & TRANSPORT ADMITTED AND CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED;
10/18/2018: Minute Order - (Case Management Conference)
1/22/2019: Notice - Notice NOTICE OF RULING RE DEFENDANTS APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDEATION OF THE COURTS OCTOBER 4, 2018 ORDER
2/26/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service
2/26/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service
5/8/2019: Separate Statement
Hearing08/19/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department S27 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF CHRISTOFFER GADDINI, ESQ.; PROPOSED ORDER
DocketNotice (Notice of Continued Ex Parte to Continue Trial); Filed by Armando Federico Reyes (Defendant); CITY LOGISTICS & TRANSPORT Erroneously Sued As CITY LOGISTICS & TRANSPORTATION MATTER (Defendant)
DocketPlaintiff's Request for Copies; Filed by Eddie Jones (Plaintiff)
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRI...), Minute Order (Court Order), Minute Order (Court Order)]); Filed by Clerk
DocketAppellate Order Reinstating Appeal (NOA: 02/04/20 B304056); Filed by Clerk
Docketat 11:16 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Court Order
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF CHRISTOFFER GADDINI, ESQ.; PROPOSED ORDER) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 03/27/2020); Filed by Clerk
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk
DocketNotice (Defendants' Notice of Continued Ex Parte to Continue Trial); Filed by Armando Federico Reyes (Defendant); CITY LOGISTICS & TRANSPORT Erroneously Sued As CITY LOGISTICS & TRANSPORTATION MATTER (Defendant)
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Eddie Jones (Plaintiff)
DocketProof-Service/Summons (PARTY SERVED: CITY LOGISTICS & TRANSPORTATION MATTER BY SUBSTITUTED SERVICE, LEFT W/ RUTH DOLDWIN-SECURITY GUARD ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketComplaint
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
DocketComplaint; Filed by Eddie Jones (Plaintiff)
DocketSUMMONS
DocketSummons; Filed by Eddie Jones (Plaintiff)
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE (PERSONAL INJURIES AND PROPERTY DAMAGES) 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE
DocketComplaint; Filed by Eddie Jones (Plaintiff)
Case Number: BC694130 Hearing Date: January 14, 2020 Dept: S27
Case Number: BC694130 Hearing Date: October 24, 2019 Dept: S27
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
The operative complaint is the first amended complaint. (Court’s 10/4/18 Order & Court’s 1/18/19 Order.) Plaintiffs Eddie Jones and Michelle Jones (collectively “Plaintiffs”) assert the following causes of action against Defendants Armando Federico Reyes, Daniel Barrios, and City Logistics & Transport in the first amended complaint: (1) negligence; (2) loss of consortium; and (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs alleged “Defendant(s) negligently entrusted, maintained, controlled, managed, drove, manufactured, operated, repaired, distributed, inspected, and repaired said automobile so as to cause them to collide with Plaintiffs, thereby causing the…injuries and damages to Plaintiffs.” (FAC ¶10.)
INTRODUCTION
Defendants City Logistics & Transport, Inc. and Armando Reyes (collectively “Defendants”) move for an order compelling Plaintiff Michelle Jones (“Plaintiff”) to submit to a second deposition within ten days or as directed by the court.
STANDARD
C.C.P. §2025.480 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) 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.
(b) 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 under Section 2016.040.
(c) Notice of this motion shall be given to all parties and to the deponent either orally at the examination, or by subsequent service in writing. If the notice of the motion is given orally, the deposition officer shall direct the deponent to attend a session of the court at the time specified in the notice.
C.C.P. §2025.610 provides, as follows:
(a) may take a subsequent deposition of that deponent.
(b)
(c)
(1) .
(2) , for the limited purpose of discovering pursuant to Section 485.230 the identity, location, and value of property in which the deponent has an interest.
(d) .
ANALYSIS
Defendants are not entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to submit to a second deposition.
Defendants argue good cause exists under C.C.P. §2025.610(b) because Plaintiff did not produce any of the documents requested (via the Second Amended Notice of Deposition) at her deposition. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.) (Motion, pg. 3.) (Declaration of Freeburg ¶4; Exhibits A-B.) Defendants argue the “documents, regarding insurance and ownership, are now central to whether general damages may be recovered in this action.” (Motion, pg. 3.) (Declaration of Freeburg ¶4.)
However, Defendants did not establish good cause exists to compel Plaintiff to submit to a second deposition. First, Defendants should have brought a timely motion to compel production of the requested documents under C.C.P. §2025.480. It is too late now for Defendants to bring a motion under C.C.P. §2025.480. Defendants took Plaintiff’s deposition on April 9, 2019, more than six months ago. (Declaration of Freeburg ¶4; Exhibit B.) (Declaration of Gaddini ¶4.) Second, as argued by Plaintiff, Defendants’ request for a second deposition is an overly broad remedy to address the discovery issue raised in the motion, specifically Plaintiff’s failure to produce the requested documents at deposition. (Opposition, pg. 2.) Defendants have not “established good cause for an all-encompassing second deposition” of Plaintiff. (Opposition, pg. 2.)
In the reply, Defendants represent they are “agreeable to limiting the scope of the second deposition to the documents that were not previously produced.” (Reply, pg. 2.) However, as discussed above, Defendants should have brought a timely motion to compel production of the documents under C.C.P. §2025.480 and Defendants did not establish good cause for a second deposition.
The court notes that good cause might have existed had Plaintiff produced the requested documents after the deposition (voluntarily or pursuant to a court order) and Defendants had questions for Plaintiff regarding the documents.
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion is denied.
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motion to compel a second deposition is denied.