RYAN ORTEGO ET AL VS ADAN ESPARZA MUNOZ ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC670756    Hearing Date: December 04, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Deposition

Defendants conducted Plaintiff’s deposition on 10/16/19. The parties engaged in deposition for six hours and forty minutes or questioning (a total of eight hours and one minute including breaks), at which time Plaintiff and his attorney walked out of the deposition, contending the deposition was in violation of the seven-hour rule.

2. Motion to Compel Additional Deposition

a. Parties’ Positions

Defendants contend they had just begun to question Plaintiff about how the accident affected his quality of life when Plaintiff walked out, and ask for an order permitting them to conduct an additional three hours of deposition (the caption of the motion indicates Defendants seek two additional hours, but the notice of motion and all related papers ask for three hours).

Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing (a) Defendants have refused reasonable offers to sit for deposition for another forty minutes or one hour, (b) Defendants failed to participate in an informal discovery conference prior to bringing the motion, (c) any additional deposition would amount to harassment, (d) Defendants have improperly relied on Plaintiff’s statement of damages as justification for the continued deposition, and (e) if the Court grants the motion, the Court should restrict Defendants to one hour of additional questioning and should ensure Defense Counsel does not revisit issues already addressed in deposition. Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with the opposition.

Defendants, in reply, contend each of Plaintiff’s arguments lacks merit, and ask for an order permitting the deposition to go forward as requested.

b. Authority for Motion

CCP §2025.290(a) provides, “Except as provided in subdivision (b), or by any court order, including a case management order, a deposition examination of the witness by all counsel, other than the witness' counsel of record, shall be limited to seven hours of total testimony. The court shall allow additional time, beyond any limits imposed by this section, if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.”

c. Moving Burden

Defendants provide an excerpt from the last 13 pages of the deposition, which shows (a) Defense Counsel was questioning Plaintiff about his damages prior to the conclusion of the deposition, and (b) Plaintiff terminated the deposition at six hours and forty minutes, due to the impending seven-hour cut-off. Defendants fail to meaningfully discuss the nature of the deposition on the first 232 pages of the deposition. Defendants generally contend the first 232 pages were spent discussing the cause of the accident, but details are not provided, and no transcript is provided.

This is made more frustrating by the fact that Plaintiff argues any additional deposition would be harassing, and Defendants should have used the allotted seven hours in a way that ensured all topics were covered. Plaintiff also does not provide a copy of the transcript for review, and does not provide any examples of harassing or unnecessary deposition questioning or testimony.

It is clear that Defendants did not finish questioning Plaintiff about his damages. It is not clear why Defendants did not finish questioning Plaintiff about his damages. Notably, Plaintiff argues his statement of damages, which seeks damages in excess of $1 million, should not be used as the basis to request testimony concerning damages. Plaintiff fails, however, to meaningfully detail what his actual claimed damages are in this case. In any event, Defendants must depose Plaintiff concerning his damages.

On balance, the Court finds Defendants established good cause to show additional time is needed to depose Plaintiff concerning his damages. The Court is not, however, inclined to award three additional hours. Defendants are entitled, per Code, to twenty additional minutes. The Court is inclined to award one hour in addition to the twenty minutes allocated, for a total of eighty minutes of additional deposition time.

d. Additional Arguments

Defendants were not required to schedule or participate in an IDC prior to the hearing on this motion, as it is not a motion to compel further responses. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants should not be permitted to revisit issues on which Plaintiff was already deposed. The deposition is limited to issues concerning Plaintiff’s claimed damages, which is the sole basis for the motion.

e. Sanctions

The Court finds this motion presented a real issue and a genuine need for compromise. The Court finds the parties took their positions in good faith. No sanctions are imposed.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@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.

Case Number: BC670756    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

It appears both parties are available for deposition on 10/24/19, the date scheduled for the hearing on this motion. The Court is hopeful that the parties can have the deposition go forward on 10/24/19 without the need for a court order. The Court therefore continues the hearing on the motion for two weeks, to 11/07/19 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 3 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

The Court notes that both parties seek imposition of sanctions in connection with the motion. It does appear that Defendant is primarily responsible for the failure of the deposition to have gone forward to date. However, it also appears Plaintiff’s attorney failed to meaningfully meet and confer in response to Defendant’s offer to have the deposition set on 9/16/19 prior to filing the moving papers. Additionally, as Defendant correctly notes in opposition to the motion, the moving papers are devoid of a showing of good cause concerning the attendant request for production of documents; it does not appear Plaintiff ever made an attempt to meet and confer concerning the objections to that demand.

The Court asks the attorneys to meet and confer immediately upon receipt of this tentative ruling in an attempt to resolve any issues relating to the demand for production of documents. The Court is hopeful that the deposition can go forward on 10/24/19 and that all issues relating to documents can be resolved.

If any issues remain outstanding after 10/24/19, the parties must brief their positions concerning the outstanding issues at least one week prior to the continued hearing date. Courtesy copies of the briefs must be submitted directly to the department. The briefs must address (a) why the deposition did not go forward on 10/24/19, (b) any unresolved issues relating to production of documents, and (c) any requests for sanctions.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@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.