2010-00091529-CU-FR
Darlyne Andrus vs. Stewart Title Of Placer
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion to Compel Christopher Jackson to Submit to a Further Deposition
Kearns, Brian M.

Defendants’ Stewart Title of Placer, et al.s’ unopposed motion for an order compelling
Christopher Jackson to submit to a further deposition is granted.

Defendants sought to depose Mr. Jackson on March 11, 2014, at which time Mr.
Jackson refused to answer any questions on the basis that he had not consulted with
his attorney. The deposition took place at the Sacramento County Main Jail where Mr.
Jackson is currently awaiting sentencing after having been convicted of numerous
felonies in a federal criminal matter arising from the same set of facts as the instant
civil proceeding. His sentencing is set for April 10, 2014. Mr. Jackson is a defendant
whose default was taken in the instant action and is not represented by counsel in
these proceedings. Trial in these proceedings is set for July 14, 2014. The Court
granted Defendants’ ex parte application for an OST and set the instant matter for
hearing on today’s calendar.

Where a deponent fails to answer questions at a deposition, the party noticing the
deposition may seek a court order compelling the deponent to answer questions.
(CCP § 2025.480.) Here, Mr. Jackson refused to answer any questions on the basis
that he had not spoken with his attorney, apparently his public defendant in the federal
criminal action. He did not assert any privileges. A party may move to compel an
answer to a deposition question where a deponent refuses to answer. (CCP §
2025.480.) The moving party does not have the burden to show good cause to
compel the deponent to answer relevant and non-privileged questions. (Kramer. v.
Superior Court (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 753, 755.) The motion is granted. The Court agrees with Defendants that Mr. Jackson shall
appear for a further deposition to respond to questions that do not call for privileged or
other protected information as requested by Defendants in their moving papers. Mr.
Jackson’s failure to have consulted with his criminal defense attorney prior to the
March 11, deposition is no basis upon which to refuse to answer questions.

Mr. Jackson is therefore ordered to appear for a further deposition as requested in the
moving papers. Given the approaching sentencing, the deposition shall take place no
later than April 9, 2014. The Court, however, declines Defendants’ request that the
deposition take place at the Sacramento Superior Court so that the Court may
supervise the deposition.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule
3.1312 or other notice is required