If the deponent is a company, organization, or public entity and not a natural person, the party noticing the deposition may request that the company, organization, or public entity designate the person most qualified (“PMQ”) within the company, organization, or public entity to testify regarding the matters specified in the deposition notice.
Code of Civil Procedure § 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.” Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4), provides: “The deposition notice shall state . . . with reasonable particularity . . . any materials or category of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced by the deponent.”
The PMQ witness is to answer general questions about the nature and scope of the inquiry or investigation, dates conducted, persons interviewed, identity of others participating in the investigation and documents reviewed and/or given access to. (Evid. Code § 771). However, the PMQ is not required to answer questions about (1) confidential conversations among client, its agents and the client’s attorneys or (2) documents prepared by defendant’s attorneys or by defendant for confidential transmission to its attorneys even if they refreshed the witness’s recollection; any other documents which the witness reviewed in the presence of defendant’s attorneys are discoverable only if they refreshed the witness’s recollection. (Evid. Code § 771).
Any withheld documents are to be identified in a privilege log. If the witness is unable to identify which documents among the many he reviewed to refresh his memory, then all reviewed documents (except those excluded above) are to be produced. (International Ins. Co. v. Montrose Chemical Corp. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1367, 1372-1373).
If a party fails to comply with a deposition notice, the party serving the notice may bring a motion to compel. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a)).
“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230 . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” CCP § 2025.230. (Maldonado v Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1398).
The statute requires an entity to “designate and produce at the deposition” the individual(s) “most qualified to testify on its behalf as to whose matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.030.)
No “meet and confer” is required before a motion to compel where the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce documents; all that is required is a declaration by the moving party that he or she has contacted the deponent “to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(b)(2). Although the statute appears to apply only if the deponent fails to both appear and produce documents, it has been held to apply on a deponent's simple failure to appear. (Leko v. Cornerstone Building Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1124).
Compel Deposition On CCP § 2025.450(a) provides, “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice,
Jul 15, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance and Production of Documents Moving Party: Defendant Monika Setyan Resp. Party: None (2) Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance and Production of Documents Moving Party: Defendant Monika Setyan Resp. Party: None The motion to compel deposition attendance and production of documents is GRANTED. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions against Volodya Adanyan and his counsel Julie C. Lim in the amount of $1,478.50.
Jul 13, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
A motion to compel deposition shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040 or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)
Jul 13, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) The Motion by Defendants Kelly Nguyen and Cong Nguyen to compel answers to deposition questions is DENIED. The dispute concerns the deposition of Plaintiff’s designated expert witness, Dr. Jeffrey Gross, and his refusal to answer certain questions at his 12/10/2019 deposition, pursuant to the instruction of Plaintiff’s counsel.
Jul 13, 2020
Orange County, CA
On March 30, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition of Gustavo Gutierrez and request for sanctions. On March 30, 2020, the Court took the nine motions to compel further discovery responses off calendar and set an Informal Discovery Conference for July 13, 2020. Neither the Court nor plaintiff’s counsel has been able to contact Defendant Gutierrez.
Jul 10, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Compel Deposition; Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admission as True Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On May 22, 2019, Plaintiff Anurag Gupta (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Sharise Marie Barbosa (“Defendant”). The complaint alleges negligence arising from an automobile collision that occurred on August 29, 2017.
Jul 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
ANALYSIS Motion To Compel Deposition Plaintiffs move to compel the deposition of Defendant FCA US LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable with production of documents and requests monetary sanctions. Plaintiff argues that Defendant refused to produce a PMK for the deposition noticed for January 22, 2020, only provided one alternative date, and refuse to produce documents at the deposition as set forth in the notice of deposition.
Jul 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
As a procedural matter, Plaintiff’s moving papers fail to identify any statutory basis to support the motion to compel deposition. Plaintiff however presumably would be seeking relief under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450 or 2025.480.
Jul 09, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
A Person Most Qualified shall be identified and produced for deposition within 60 days of the date of this hearing.
Jul 09, 2020
Solano County, CA
Analysis Plaintiff seeks to compel deposition of the PMQs and employees identified and named in the deposition subpoenas. (See Mot. Exh. 12.)
Jul 09, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
BMW of North America, LLC MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff, Eddie Urquiza OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant, BMW of North America, LLC TRIAL DATE: None PROOF OF SERVICE: OK PROCEEDING: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Michael Murray and Production of Documents at Deposition OPPOSITION: June 24, 2020 REPLY: June 30, 2020 TENTATIVE : Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also denied. Defendant is to give notice.
Jul 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
On February 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable, with Production of Documents. This motion relates to the PMK deposition initially set for December 30, 2019. Also on February 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a second motion to compel deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable, with Production of Documents.
Jul 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
DISCUSSION: Motion To Compel Deposition and Document Production Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Hua Mao and production of documents at the deposition. The motion is based on CCP § 2025.450.
Jul 07, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of General Motor LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) and Request for Sanctions. TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of General Motors, LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable and Custodian of Records and Request for Sanctions is denied. Plaintiff noticed a deposition of Defendant’s PMK on February 3, 2020 for a February 21, 2020 deposition.
Jul 07, 2020
Solano County, CA
Motion to Compel Deposition Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. No reply papers were filed. BACKGROUND On October 19, 2018, Plaintiff Kathleen Marazoni (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Los Angeles County Metroplitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”). The complaint alleges negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent retention arising from a bus colliding into Plaintiff while she was in a motorized wheelchair on May 9, 2018.
Jul 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Compel Deposition Defendant Albertson’s LLC (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Greg Otero (“Plaintiff”) to appear for deposition.
Jul 02, 2020
Orange County, CA
Motion to Compel Deposition Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On October 1, 2019, Plaintiff Walter Donley (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Frank Lara, Jr. and Rubio’s Fleet. The complaint alleges motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on October 25, 2017.
Jul 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
On February 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Hooman Nissani and Request for Sanctions. On March 11, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Compel Further Deposition and Further Response of Defendant Rayan Nissani and Request for Sanctions. On March 13, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant NBA Automotive’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) and Request for Sanctions.
Jul 02, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Compel Deposition Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On March 12, 2018, Plaintiff Nita Loggins (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles and Fredy E. Salazar. The complaint alleges premises liability and negligence for a trip-and-fall that occurred on August 29, 2017.
Jul 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition is DENIED as moot. The Court finds that Defendant Oakpark’s counsel’s declaration is sufficient evidence that McGrath is not an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of Defendant Oakpark. Accordingly, Plaintiff was required to issue a deposition subpoena in order to compel the deposition of McGrath.
Jul 01, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
ANALYSIS Motion To Compel Deposition Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors, LLC’s senior repurchase reviewer Dave McWhorter, with production of documents. The Court continued the hearing on this motion from March 6, 2020 to permit supplemental briefing to address the Court’s online tentative regarding whether McWhorter is a “managing agent” for purposes of a party-affiliated deposition.
Jul 01, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion To Compel Deposition Defendant Plastic Express moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and requests the imposition of sanctions. Plaintiff has not submitted to a deposition on the date noticed, and would not agree to a date for the deposition to be reset.
Jul 01, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion To Compel Deposition Plaintiff moves to compel production of a competent PMK by Defendant FCA US, LLC, and requests sanctions. Discussion: Although Defendant’s PMK deposition occurred on September 9, 2019, Plaintiff argues that he was unable to provide competent testimony as to 24 of the 33 requested categories: Nos. 1 to 9 and 11 to 25. (Declaration of Amy Morse ¶ 10.)
Jun 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Compel Deposition of Gustavo Gutierrez A. Relevant Law The service of a deposition notice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action to attend and testify. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)
Jun 30, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Compel Deposition; Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On May 25, 2019, Plaintiff Ruthie Stockfish (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Amos Stockfish, Aliakbar J. Neyestani, Shirin Neystani, and Neystani Family Trust. The complaint alleges negligence and premises liability for a trip-and-fall that occurred on May 14, 2017.
Jun 29, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
