Case Number: EC066951 Hearing Date: January 12, 2018 Dept: NCE

14. Kweskin v. King

EC066951

Motion of defendants Ronnie Charles King and Pamela King to quash deposition subpoena and/or for protective order is denied.

The only objection asserted in the Objections to Notice of Ronnie Charles King and Pamela King is that the notices of deposition “have not been served on all parties who have appeared in the action.” That objection was without merit. Setting aside the issues of whether the requirement of CCP § 2025.240(a) that the notice shall be given to “every other party who has appeared in the action” requires notice to multiple attorneys for a party or whether the proposed deponent has standing to object that the notice was not given by one of plaintiff’s attorneys to another of plaintiff’s attorneys, the fact remains that the second plaintiff’s attorney had not yet appeared in the action at the time the Notices of Deposition were served and therefore that there was no requirement that he be served with those notices. The deposition notices were served on September 1, 2017 and plaintiff’s second counsel did not appear in the action until almost 2 weeks later on September 13, 2018.

All other objections or justifications argued in the moving and reply papers were waived by defendants’ failure to include them in the formal written objections. See CCP § 2025.410(a) (“Any party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2025.210) waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney or party on whom the deposition notice was served.”) Even if the court were to consider those arguments, which it will not, the court finds particularly unpersuasive the argument that the depositions should be delayed until documents have been reviewed since moving party had not served any document demands at the time of the written objection and does not argue that it has even served them prior to the hearing of this motion. The argument that an out of town counsel’s schedule should also be accommodated is similarly unpersuasive since that counsel has not filed a pro hac vice application to date which seeks leave to represent the defendants.

Therefore, the Objection served on October 14, 2017 is overruled. The deponents Ronnie Charles King and Pamela King are ordered to appear for deposition and to provide testimony on a mutually convenient date before January 29, 2017.

Request for monetary sanctions in the opposition are granted. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $3,000 against defendants Ronnie Charles King and Pamela King, and their attorney of record, payable within 30 days.