[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS
On October 4, 2018, Plaintiff Steven Andrew Kamin filed this action against defendants Edgar Alejandro Avila-Martinez and Lyft, Inc. for injuries from an motor vehicle collision on November 4, 2016. On November 21, 2019, Plaintiff served notices of deposition for Carlos Garzon, Carter Dorton, Gabriela Cordero, Christina Vilendrer, and Jared Bill Harponski, who Plaintiff contends are Lyft employees.
Cordero, Vilendrer and Harponski
Lyft states Cordero, Vilendrer, and Harponski are no longer its employees. A party can procure attendance at a deposition by way of a notice only if the deponent is a party or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party. Otherwise, a subpoena is necessary. (Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1398.) Because these individuals are no longer Lyft employees, Plaintiff must subpoena them. Therefore, the motion to compel Cordero’s, Vilendrer’s, and Harponski’s dep
Hearing Date
February 25, 2020
Type
Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS
On October 4, 2018, Plaintiff Steven Andrew Kamin filed this action against defendants Edgar Alejandro Avila-Martinez and Lyft, Inc. for injuries from an motor vehicle collision on November 4, 2016. On November 21, 2019, Plaintiff served notices of deposition for Carlos Garzon, Carter Dorton, Gabriela Cordero, Christina Vilendrer, and Jared Bill Harponski, who Plaintiff contends are Lyft employees.
Cordero, Vilendrer and Harponski
Lyft states Cordero, Vilendrer, and Harponski are no longer its employees. A party can procure attendance at a deposition by way of a notice only if the deponent is a party or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party. Otherwise, a subpoena is necessary. (Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1398.) Because these individuals are no longer Lyft employees, Plaintiff must subpoena them. Therefore, the motion to compel Cordero’s, Vilendrer’s, and Harponski’s dep