Case Number: BC633524 Hearing Date: March 08, 2018 Dept: 92

GABRIELLA NAGY, an Individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC633524

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH AND/OR FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Dept. 92

1:30 p.m.

March 8, 2018

Defendant Collette T. Finale’s Motion to Quash and/or for Protective Order is DENIED.

Plaintiff Gabriella Nagy brought suit against Defendants City of Los Angeles and Collette T. Finale, alleging she tripped and fell on a sprinkler protruding from property owned by Finale onto a public sidewalk owned by the City of Los Angeles.

On November 29, 2017, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Finale, for January 19, 2018. On January 18, 2018, Finale brought the instant motion to quash and for protective order. Finale argues she is 93 years old, and that a deposition would therefore be unduly burdensome. Finale also argues she is willing to provide Plaintiff with information regarding her landscaper, but otherwise has no relevant information, because she does not personally landscape her yard and did not witness the fall.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff argues the motion is untimely. The Court agrees. Finale originally served the motion on January 28, 2018, indicating the hearing date was March 28, 2018. However, the motion had in fact been reserved for March 8, 2018. Accordingly, on February 13, 2018, Finale served notice of errata, noting the motion was actually set for March 8.

Plaintiff argues this notice of errata had to be served sixteen court days before the hearing, plus five calendar days, pursuant to CCP § 1005(b), which would be February 8, 2018.

For this reason alone, the motion should be DENIED.

Regardless, if the Court considers the motion on the merits, it is likewise apparent the motion should be denied. Finale has submitted evidence that she is 93 years old (see Goldstein Decl., Exh. 5.) Yet Finale has provided no evidence she is infirm or physically unable to submit to a deposition. Moreover, the bulk of Finale’s argument is that she has no information for Plaintiff; but that is for Plaintiff to determine. As the owner of the property in question, and a party to the suit, Plaintiff is entitled to question Finale regarding her property. Beyond her own, unsupported representation that Finale has nothing important to say, and a reference to her age without further facts, Finale has provided not shown good cause for the Court to prevent the deposition. (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 318 [“Where a party must resort to the courts, the burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought.”] [internal quotations omitted].)

Accordingly, Finale’s motion to quash deposition, or for a protective order, is DENIED on the merits as well.

Pursuant to CCP § 2025.420(h), “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Plaintiff seeks $2,450 in sanctions, based on five hours to prepare the opposition and two hours to appear at the hearing, at a rate of $350. The Court awards five hours of time at $300/hour for a total of $1500 payable by Defendant Finale and her attorney of record to Plaintiff, by and through her attorney of record.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.

Moving party to provide notice.

Dated this 8th day of March, 2018

Hon. Marc Gross

Judge of the Superior Court