LUPE VASQUEZ ET AL VS FASTRANS SHUTTLE LLC ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC670532    Hearing Date: August 26, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs, Lupez, Alberto, and Maria Vasquez filed this action against Defendants, Fastrans Shuttle, LLC, Transdev North America, Inc., and Samer Mohammad Dali Alshloul for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiffs recently added SuperShuttle, LLC as a doe defendant in the action.

Plaintiffs noticed Defendant, Fastrans’s PMK deposition on numerous occasions. The parties ultimately agreed to set the deposition for 10/16/19. On 10/16/19, Fastrans produced Robert Greer as its PMK deponent. Mr. Greer testified that he is not, nor never was, an employee of Fastrans. Mr. Greer further testified that he was employed by SuperShuttle and Transdev, and that Fastrans was an independent contractor. Plaintiffs attempted to re-notice the deposition of Fastrans’s PMK, but Fastrans continues to insist Mr. Greer is its PMK. Currently, Plaintiff moves to compel Fastrans to produce its true PMK for deposition.

CCP § 2025.230 provides, “If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.”

Fastrans, in opposition to the motion, argues Mr. Green was the appropriate person to testify on its behalf. Fastrans contends Mr. Green will be its PMK at trial, and the relationship between Fastrans and SuperShuttle is such that Mr. Greer is the only PMK on the issues listed by Plaintiff. Specifically, Fastrans explains Fastrans owns the van that was involved in the accident, and Supershuttle performs maintenance on the vehicles, provides all driver and safety training to the drivers, provides insurance, supervises the drivers, etc. Fastrans also argues that the motion is procedurally defective for a variety of reasons.

The Court will focus on the substance of the motion, and not on the various purported procedural defects. Fastrans fails to dispute Mr. Green’s testimony, at deposition, that he is not employed by Fastrans. However, §2025.230 permits Fastrans to produce, in addition to its employees, etc., its “agent” regarding various issues. Fastrans contends Mr. Green was that person. Plaintiffs contend he was not. The Rutter Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial, §8:477, explains:

The entity's duty to designate the “most qualified” person to testify on its behalf may work better in theory than in practice.

It may be useful if all you need is to authenticate corporate records or proceedings. But it may not pin down exactly who knows what, or did what, within the organization. I.e., the witness designated as the “most qualified” by the corporation may not have the information you require. So you may have to take additional depositions to find out what you need to know.

Therefore, if the matter involved is critical to your case, do not rely on the entity's duty to designate the “most qualified” officer or employee. It is better practice to do your own investigation or send out interrogatories asking who in the organization has knowledge of the particular facts you seek; and take that person's deposition.

Afterwards, if the corporation is a party to the action, follow up with requests for admission to make sure the facts obtained are binding on the corporation.

If a single designated PMK lacks knowledge of information sought in the deposition notice, and if it can be shown that the information was reasonably available, and the witness did not take reasonable steps, it may well be appropriate to require the designation of additional PMKs or a redeposition of the original PMK after he or she takes steps to be prepared. Plaintiff’s motion does not establish that the designation of Greer is inadequate or that he needs to be redeposed or additional PMKs need to be designated to provide all information reasonably available to Defendant.

Plaintiffs, in this case, cite no authority for their position that the Court can instruct Defendant that it produced the wrong person for a PMK deposition and produce a true PMK, and the Court knows of no such authority. The motion is therefore denied. But if further discovery shows that there were additional individuals who had knowledge of issues specified in the PMK deposition notice and the designated PMK took no steps to prepare himself for those issues by speaking to other witnesses, that may serve as a basis to file a motion seeking an additional designation of PMK witnesses. Moreover, the Defendant may be precluded from introducing evidence at trial on issues on which the PMK witness lacked knowledge at the time of the deposition if that information can be shown to have been reasonably available to Defendant. Unlike most deposition witnesses, PMK’s have an affirmative duty to be prepared to testify not only as to their own personal knowledge, but also as to all information “known or reasonably available” to the entity they represent. Thus, unlike many witnesses who quite properly attend deposition without having prepared, it is typically not appropriate for a PMK witness to be unprepared. (See e.g. Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1395-96 [“[i]f the subject matter of the questioning is clearly stated, the burden is on the entity, not the examiner, to produce the right witnesses. And, if the particular officer or employee designated lacks personal knowledge of all the information sought, he or she is supposed to find out from those who do… [¿] When a request for documents is made … the witness or someone in authority is expected to make an inquiry of everyone who might be holding responsive documents or everyone who knows where such documents might be held.”].) [1]

Defendant request sanctions in the amount of $1,650.00 against Plaintiff pursuant to CCP § 2023.010(i) on the grounds Plaintiffs did not properly meet and confer before filing the motion. While the Court strongly encourages parties to meet and confer prior to seeking judicial intervention, Plaintiffs produce evidence they attempted to meet and confer prior to filing their motion. (See Mot. Exh. R and S.) No sanctions are imposed.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 26^th day of August, 2020

Case Number: BC670532    Hearing Date: February 14, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff served a sixth Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents on Defendant Fastrans Shuttle, LLC (“Fastrans”) on October 7, 2019. The Notice indicated an intent to depose Fastrans’s PMK concerning 22 issues and request for production of 36 documents. It was noticed for October 16, 2019. There have been five previous notices and was rescheduled to accommodate Fastrans. Plaintiff attempted to schedule depositions with Defendant multiple times preceding the October 16, 2019 deposition. At the October 16, 2019 deposition, Fastrans produced Robert Greer as the deponent. Mr. Greer attests that he is not, nor never was, an employee of Fastrans. Mr. Greer further attests that he represented SuperShuttle and Transdev, and that Fastrans was an independent contractor. This motion therefore follows. No opposition was filed.

The motion to compel deposition is granted.  CCP §2025.450(a).  Plaintiff’s Counsel and Defense Counsel are ordered to work together to schedule a time, date, and location for Defendant’s PMK deposition(s).  The deposition(s) must go forward within twenty days.  If Counsel are unable to resolve this issue, Plaintiff’s Counsel may set the deposition on Plaintiff’s Counsel’s terms with ten days’ notice to Defense Counsel (additional notice per Code if notice is by other than personal service). 

Plaintiff also moves the Court for an order to compel production of documents. Plaintiff’s Notice contains 36 document requests. The Court finds Plaintiff set forth sufficient specific facts showing good cause justifying the production of requested documents. CCP §2025.450(b). Accordingly, the motion to compel production of documents is granted.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys of record in the amount of $2,160.00.  Sanctions are mandatory.  §2025.450(c).  Plaintiff’s attorney bills at the rate of $300/hour.  The Court awards three hours to prepare the moving papers and meeting and conferring.  No opposition was filed and therefore no reply was necessary.  The Court therefore awards three hours of attorney time at the rate of $300/hour, or $900 in attorneys’ fees.  The Court awards the requested $60 filing/processing fee, for the total amount of $960. The Court also awards $1,500.90, the costs associated with deposing Mr. Greer.

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Fastrans and its attorney of record, jointly and severally; they are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through her attorney of record, in the amount of $2,460.9, within twenty days.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at SSCDEPT31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.

Case Number: BC670532    Hearing Date: February 03, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs, Lupe, Alberto, and Maria Vasquez filed this action against Defendants, Fastrans Shuttle, LLC, Transdev North America, Inc., and Samer Mohammad Dali Alshloul for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff filed the original complaint on 7/31/17, and the parties have previously stipulated to continue the trial date. On 12/19/19, Plaintiffs added SuperShuttle Los Angeles, Inc. as Doe 1.

Trial is currently scheduled for 3/30/20. Plaintiffs move to continue trial. They move largely based on the fact that SuperShuttle was only recently added to the action. They also show that discovery is ongoing, and that the parties desire to participate in mediation.

The Court finds Defendant’s very recent addition to the case constitutes good cause for a continuance of the trial date. The Court finds the request to continue the action to September of 2020 reasonable, as defendants typically have more than one year to prepare for trial once named in civil actions.

The 3/20/20 trial date is advanced to today’s date and continued to Wednesday, 9/30/20 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The 3/16/20 FSC date is advanced to today’s date and continued to 9/16/20 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31. All discovery cut-off deadlines are continued to reflect the new trial date. Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.