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).
.: 20stcv17362 Hearing Date: December 2, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION to compel deposition of defendant fca’s person most knowledgeable Background Plaintiff CARLOS HALILI (Plaintiff) commenced this action against Defendant FCA US LLC (FCA) on May 6, 220. The Complaint asserts causes of action for violations of the Song Beverly statute. Plaintiff’s claims arise from his purchase of a 2018 Ram 1500 (Vehicle).
Los Angeles County, CA
.: 18STCV02854 Hearing Date: December 2, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel deposition BACKGROUND Plaintiff Raymond A. Padilla (“Plaintiff”) filed this medical malpractice action against Defendant Nancy Ann McCarthy, M.D. (“Defendant”), among others. Now, Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant. The motion is granted. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 22, 2019, Plaintiff served a deposition notice on Defendant. (Declaration of Benjamin Fogel, ¶ 3.)
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Los Angeles County, CA
.: 19STCV10080 Hearing Date: December 2, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION to compel deposition of defendant GM’s person most knowledgeable Background Plaintiff Jason Smith (Plaintiff) commenced this action against Defendant General Motors, LLC (GM) on March 25, 2019. The Complaint asserts causes of action for violations of the Song Beverly statute. Plaintiff’s claims arise from his purchase of a 2012 Chevy Cruze (Vehicle).
Los Angeles County, CA
Meet and Confer A motion to compel deposition must be accompanied by a good faith 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).)
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Design Group, Inc.’s Person Most Knowledgeable, to continue the hearing on Defendant Lisa Zeder’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and a request for sanctions. [TENTATIVE] RULING: Plaintiff’s Motion Compel Deposition of Defendant L.Z. Design Group, Inc.’s Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Request to Continue the Hearing on Defendant Lisa Zeder’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Stoller) Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance and Production of Documents of Defendant General Motors LLC’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable and Custodian(s) of Records (Motion), filed on 6-17-20 under ROA No. 101, is DENIED.
Orange County, CA
Abuzeid, Esq. in Regards to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition [ROA 309] and the Supplemental Declaration of Bryan Pease in Support of Motion to Compel Deposition [ROA 310]. Nothing in either declaration causes the court to rule in a manner other than as set forth above.
Other
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
Therefore, Defendant’s objection that “[d]ue to COVID-19, the resulting shelter in place orders and the travel restrictions put in place by FCA US, the Person Most Knowledgeable is unavailable to appear at the deposition” is frivolous. Further, as this motion is unopposed, Defendant has failed to justify its objections. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition of Defendant’s PMK and production of documents. II.
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, Defendant’s objection that “[d]ue to COVID-19, the resulting shelter in place orders and the travel restrictions put in place by FCA US, the Person Most Knowledgeable is unavailable to appear at the deposition” is frivolous. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff brings this action based on warranty obligations in connection with a 2016 Jeep Cherokee Sport vehicle he purchased on March 2, 2017. (Complaint, ¶¶ 5-6.)
Los Angeles County, CA
ORDER Defendants K&K Food, Inc. and Syed Kaiser Sphere's Motion to Compel Deposition and Motion to Quash came on regularly for hearing on November 20, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: THE MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION IS GRANTED. THE MOTION TO QUASH IS DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. DATE: _______________ _______________________________ JUDGE
Los Angeles County, CA
ORDER Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Uni-Glory Development, Inc. and Cross-Defendants George Zhang, Lucy Xiangxin Gao, and Chien-Kuo Liu's Motion to Compel Deposition came on regularly for hearing on November 20, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: THE MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION IS GRANTED, AND ASSOCIATED SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,111.65.
Los Angeles County, CA
ORDER Defendants CAH 2014-1 Borrower, LLC and Colfin AI-CA 5, LLC's three motions to compel deposition all came on regularly for hearing on November 20, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: THE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AS TO OGANESIAN, GAREGIN, AND NARINE ARE DENIED. DATE: _______________ _______________________________ JUDGE
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
Unsuccessful Motion to Compel Deposition Florence made entries totaling $2,875 in connection with drafting an unsuccessful motion to compel Jiang’s deposition. Jiang notes that the Court denied the fee requests made in connection with the motion to compel the deposition. Indeed, the Court held that both parties’ requests for monetary sanctions were denied given that the parties failed to adequately meet and confer.
Los Angeles County, CA
As to witnesses Dave Cunningham, Philippe Cueto, Ken Jones, Bryce Chumley, Chris Pepin, Jason Kobler, Corey Wells, and Bryce Dallas, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel deposition is DENIED. Plaintiffs are required to issue deposition subpoenas to the third-party witnesses in order to compel their depositions. Defendant is ordered to provide Plaintiffs forthwith the witnesses’ last known contact information.
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Compel Deposition Rios seeks to compel the deposition of Rose Tam (“Tam”), the City’s finance director. 1.
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Unsuccessful Motion to Compel Deposition Florence made entries totaling $2,875 in connection with drafting an unsuccessful motion to compel Jiang’s deposition. Jiang notes that the Court denied the fee requests made in connection with the motion to compel the deposition. Indeed, the Court held that both parties’ requests for monetary sanctions were denied given that the parties failed to adequately meet and confer.
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Compel Deposition Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 permits discovery of non-party witnesses through oral and written depositions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010(a)(1), (2); Hawkins v. TACA International Airlines, S.A. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 466, 476.) A deposition subpoena may command the attendance and testimony of the deponent, the production of business records, or both. (Id., § 2020.020.)
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Compel Deposition Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 permits discovery of non-party witnesses through oral and written depositions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010(a)(1), (2); Hawkins v. TACA International Airlines, S.A. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 466, 476.) A deposition subpoena may command the attendance and testimony of the deponent, the production of business records, or both. (Id., § 2020.020.)
Los Angeles County, CA
C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(1) provides that, “[t]he motion [to compel deposition] shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
On October 27, Berry filed her “Objection to Appellants Motion to Compel Deposition.” She requests a monetary sanction of $2,695. Berry also asks the court to appoint a special master to oversee discovery. Piecing together the chronology of what transpired in this case is very difficult because Mr.
Santa Barbara 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 February 16, 2018, Plaintiff Marcela Santillan Estrada (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Globalmed Systems, Inc., Sina Aulai, and Mobile Dialysis. Plaintiff alleges premises liability and negligence in the complaint for a pedestrian-automobile collision that occurred on February 29, 2016.
Los Angeles County, CA
CATEGORY NO. 6: YOUR Person(s) Most Knowledgeable regarding the maintenance of the PROPERTY. CATEGORY NO. 7: YOUR Person(s) Most Knowledgeable regarding repairs of the LOCATION. CATEGORY NO. 8: YOUR Person(s) Most Knowledgeable regarding the cleaning of the LOCATION. CATEGORY NO. 9: YOUR Person(s) Most Knowledgeable regarding inspections of LOCATION. Sears’ general argument is that these categories are overbroad.
Los Angeles County, CA
Velasquez's unopposed motion to compel deposition of a person most knowledgeable and custodian of records of defendant General Motors LLC is granted. Defendant shall produce the PMK, and produce all responsive documents identified in plaintiff's notice of deposition. Plaintiff is granted sanctions in the amount of $800.00. The deposition may be done via a video conference platform within three weeks, with plaintiff to make the arrangements and inform all parties in advance.
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PMK WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS RULING: Plaintiff Maria Alvarez’s motion to compel Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. to produce its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable for deposition, is CONTINUED to 12/15/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department C19. The request to compel production of documents is DENIED.
Orange County, CA
Motion to Compel Deposition Having considered the moving and supplemental moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers have been filed. BACKGROUND On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff Thomas Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Enterprise Rent-A-Car (“Defendant Enterprise”) and Judd Griselda. Plaintiff alleged motor vehicle negligence arising from a collision that occurred on December 4, 2018.
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
