On February 03, 2021 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Gardea, Rory,
and
Does 1-25,
Morales, Brissa,
Walmart Inc.,
Walmart, Inc,
for Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
\z
F | LE D
or eAuFonNIA
swag: count
oF SAN aenmuuo
Andrew N. Kuhn. Esq. SBN 166385 0.3mm
Rafael Garcia-Salgado Esq.. SBN 283230 SAN aenumomo
k)
PETTIT KOHN INGRASSIA LUTZ & DOLIN PC
l1622 El Camino Real. Suite 300
OCT 02 2023
San Diego. (‘A 92130
Tclcphonc: (858) 755-8500
Facsimile: (858) 755-8504
li-mail: giifighnmwfigtglkohn.cmn
rgqrrciggpcxtijknhn.com
Br%7fi
Attorneys for Defendant
WALMART INC.
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY ()F SAN BERNARDINO
IO
ll RORY GARDEA, an individual. CASE NO: CIVSB2I l4l9|
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F
V. DEFENDANT WALMART INC.’S
MOTION T0 COMPEL DEPOSITION 0F
WALMART, INC, a Delaware corporation; RORY GARDEA
BRISSA MORALES. an individual; and
DOES 1-25. inclusive,
Defendants. Date: November 8, 2023
Time: 8:30 AM
Dept: S22
Judge: Hon. David IE. [)riscoll
Filed: Junc 2, 2021
Trial: March l 1, 2024
Defendant WALMART INC. (“Walmart”) submits the following points and authorities in
support ofits motion to compel the deposition ofPlaintiff RORY GARDEA (“Plaintiff”).
INTRODUCTION
This case arises out of an uncxccptional slip and fall accident in a retail store owned by
Defendant WALMART, INC. (“Walmart”). Plaintiff RORY GARDEA ("Plaintiff") slipped and
fcll on beads that had recently been dropped on the floor by another customer.
28 ///
2354-3340 l
MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANi‘ WALMART INC.’S
MOTION T0 COMPEL DEPOSITION ()F RORY GARDEA
As this matter was filed well over two years ago, Walmart has made every effort t0
schedule the deposition 0f Plaintiff t0 be prepared t0 defend itself at the time 0f trial against the
allegations being made by Plaintiff. However, Walmart now is forced t0 seek the assistance 0f
the Court t0 compel Plaintiff” s deposition, due t0 his non-appearance at two previous properly
noticed depositions. Walmart thus seeks an Order t0 compel the deposition of Plaintiff within
fifteen days 0f the hearing date.
II.
ARGUMENT
A. The Court Has the Authority t0 Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition
10 “Any party may obtain discovery . . .
by taking in California the oral deposition 0f any
11 person, including any party t0 the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an
12 organization such as a public 0r private corporation, a partnership, an association, 0r a
13 governmental agency.” (Code CiV. Proc., § 2025.010.)
14 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2025.450(a) provides that a party, failing t0 appear 0r
15 serve a valid objection for a deposition, may be compelled t0 so perform: “If, after service 0f a
16 deposition notice, a party t0 the action . . . without having served a valid obj ection under Section
17 2025.410, fails t0 appear for examination, 0r proceed with it . . . the party giving the notice may
18 move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony.”
19 Courts also have inherent power t0 control the discovery process. (Code CiV. Proc.,
20 § 128(4).) Here, Walmart noticed Plaintiffs deposition 0n March 14, 2023 and August 3, 2023.
21 However, Plaintiff did not appear for either deposition. Plaintiffs counsel also withdrew from its
22 representation 0f Plaintiff in June 2023 due t0 its inability t0 contact Plaintiff. As a result,
23 Plaintiff has abused the discovery process by failing t0 appear at two properly noticed
24 depositions.
25 B. Walmart Made a Good Faith Effort t0 Obtain Plaintiff’s Deposition
26 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2016.040 states that “[a] meet and confer declaration in
27 support 0f a motion shall state all facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an
28 informal resolution 0f each issue presented by the motion.”
2354-3340 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT WALMART INC.’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF RORY GARDEA
Document Filed Date
October 02, 2023
Case Filing Date
February 03, 2021
Category
Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
\z F | LE D or eAuFonNIA swag: count oF SAN aenmuuo Andrew N. Kuhn. Esq. SBN 166385 0.3mm Rafael Garcia-Salgado Esq.. SBN 283230 SAN aenumomo k) PETTIT KOHN INGRASSIA LUTZ & DOLIN PC l1622 El Camino Real. Suite 300 OCT 02 2023 San Diego. (‘A 92130 Tclcphonc: (858) 755-8500 Facsimile: (858) 755-8504 li-mail: giifighnmwfigtglkohn.cmn rgqrrciggpcxtijknhn.com Br%7fi Attorneys for Defendant WALMART INC. SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY ()F SAN BERNARDINO IO ll RORY GARDEA, an individual. CASE NO: CIVSB2I l4l9| Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F V. DEFENDANT WALMART INC.’S MOTION T0 COMPEL DEPOSITION 0F WALMART, INC, a Delaware corporation; RORY GARDEA BRISSA MORALES. an individual; and DOES 1-25. inclusive, Defendants. Date: November 8, 2023 Time: 8:30 AM Dept: S22 Judge: Hon. David IE. [)riscoll Filed: Junc 2, 2021 Trial: March l 1, 2024 Defendant WALMART INC. (“Walmart”) submits the following points and authorities in support ofits motion to compel the deposition ofPlaintiff RORY GARDEA (“Plaintiff”). INTRODUCTION This case arises out of an uncxccptional slip and fall accident in a retail store owned by Defendant WALMART, INC. (“Walmart”). Plaintiff RORY GARDEA ("Plaintiff") slipped and fcll on beads that had recently been dropped on the floor by another customer. 28 /// 2354-3340 l MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANi‘ WALMART INC.’S MOTION T0 COMPEL DEPOSITION ()F RORY GARDEA As this matter was filed well over two years ago, Walmart has made every effort t0 schedule the deposition 0f Plaintiff t0 be prepared t0 defend itself at the time 0f trial against the allegations being made by Plaintiff. However, Walmart now is forced t0 seek the assistance 0f the Court t0 compel Plaintiff” s deposition, due t0 his non-appearance at two previous properly noticed depositions. Walmart thus seeks an Order t0 compel the deposition of Plaintiff within fifteen days 0f the hearing date. II. ARGUMENT A. The Court Has the Authority t0 Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition 10 “Any party may obtain discovery . . . by taking in California the oral deposition 0f any 11 person, including any party t0 the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an 12 organization such as a public 0r private corporation, a partnership, an association, 0r a 13 governmental agency.” (Code CiV. Proc., § 2025.010.) 14 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2025.450(a) provides that a party, failing t0 appear 0r 15 serve a valid objection for a deposition, may be compelled t0 so perform: “If, after service 0f a 16 deposition notice, a party t0 the action . . . without having served a valid obj ection under Section 17 2025.410, fails t0 appear for examination, 0r proceed with it . . . the party giving the notice may 18 move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony.” 19 Courts also have inherent power t0 control the discovery process. (Code CiV. Proc., 20 § 128(4).) Here, Walmart noticed Plaintiffs deposition 0n March 14, 2023 and August 3, 2023. 21 However, Plaintiff did not appear for either deposition. Plaintiffs counsel also withdrew from its 22 representation 0f Plaintiff in June 2023 due t0 its inability t0 contact Plaintiff. As a result, 23 Plaintiff has abused the discovery process by failing t0 appear at two properly noticed 24 depositions. 25 B. Walmart Made a Good Faith Effort t0 Obtain Plaintiff’s Deposition 26 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2016.040 states that “[a] meet and confer declaration in 27 support 0f a motion shall state all facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an 28 informal resolution 0f each issue presented by the motion.” 2354-3340 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT WALMART INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF RORY GARDEA