EDDIE JONES VS ARMANDO FEDERICO REYES ET AL

Tentative Rulings

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.