Case Number: BC515744 Hearing Date: May 19, 2014 Dept: 91

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Depositions of Malibu Yellow Cab PMK/PMQ, filed on 4/24/14 is GRANTED. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 2025.450. Plaintiff has shown good cause for the depositions. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 2025.450(b).

Plaintiff timely served the motion by mail and by personal service. Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Reply. Sixteen court days prior to the hearing was 4/25/14. Plaintiff personally served the motion on 4/24/14.

Defendant has not suffered prejudice because Plaintiff did not include footers on the motion or a table of contents. Plaintiff submitted a Notice of Errata correcting these procedural defects and provided a meet and confer declaration. The substance of the motion was unaffected. Additionally, the original motion included copies of the parties’ correspondence reflecting their meet and confer efforts pertaining to the PMK depositions at issue. Motion, Ex. 5.

This motion is not “stayed” because Defendant filed a motion for protective order pertaining to the same depositions (set for hearing on 7/7/14). The taking of the PMK depositions is stayed, but the court can still hear Plaintiff’s motion. The Defendant’s motion raises the same issues raised here by way of Defendant’s opposition. Cal Code Civ Proc § 2025.410.

Defendant is ordered to produce designated persons most knowledgeable as noticed by Plaintiff as the topics of inquiry are relevant to the Plaintiff’s remaining claims for negligent entrustment and supervision and to the relationship with the co-Defendant, Markel Services, Inc.. The parties stipulated Defendant Drake Chew was in the course and scope of employment with Malibu Yellow Cab. Defendant’s Ex. A. The parties also stipulated that Chew’s operation of the vehicle was negligent and was the direct and proximate cause of the motor vehicle incident. Defendant’s Ex. A.

While the stipulation may address Malibu’s vicarious liability, it does not address an independent basis for liability against Malibu as alleged in the complaint for negligent supervision and negligent entrustment. Malibu is challenging these causes of action by way of demurrer, set for hearing on 7/1/14. The stipulation, addressing a single basis for liability, should not require Plaintiff to abandon all other independent bases for liability. The discovery is relevant to the remaining claims.

Plaintiff is also suing Markel Services, Incorporated, as another alleged employer of the driver. Plaintiff is entitled to discover the relationship between Malibu and Markel if any, as employers of Defendant Chew.

Sanctions of $1,560 are imposed against Defendant and counsel as requested. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 2025.450(c)(1). There is no reasonable justification for unilaterally taking the PMK depositions off calendar and prevent further discovery because Plaintiff stipulated to liability on one aspect of the case.

The Defendant’s motion to quash set for 7/7/14 is taken off calendar as MOOT.