Case Number: BC665028 Hearing Date: February 13, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

MARIA ESCOBAR, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

PUBLIC STORAGE, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC665028

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO COMPEL; IMPOSING SANCTIONS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

February 13, 2019

There are three motions to compel deposition at issue; one by Plaintiffs and two by Defendant. Plaintiffs move to compel deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified (“PMQ”) on evidence preservation. Defendant seeks to compel the depositions of Plaintiffs Maria Escobar and Claudia Escobar.

Plaintiffs’ Motion

Plaintiffs move to compel deposition of Defendant’s PMQ regarding Defendant’s efforts to preserve evidence. Plaintiffs’ concern is the existence of potential video footage of the golf cart incident. On 4/19/18, Plaintiffs deposed District Manager Shaina Magdaleno, Defendant’s designated PMQ. Magdaleno did not have any knowledge of Defendant’s evidence preservation efforts. On 1/17/19, two days after filing this motion, Plaintiffs served a notice to take the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ for the requested subjects on 1/17/19.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted. CCP §2025.450(a). Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Defense Counsel are ordered to work together to schedule a time, date, and location for Defendant’s PMQ deposition. The deposition must go forward within twenty days.

Plaintiffs’ notice of deposition includes a demand for production of documents. However, the moving papers fail to show good cause for production of the documents sought, as required by §2025.450(b)(1). The Court declines to enter an order compelling Defendant to produce documents, but urges the parties to work together to resolve any issues concerning documents without further court intervention.

Defendant’s Motions

Defendant’s has attempted to schedule the depositions of Maria Escobar and Claudia Escobar on 6/22/18, 8/22/18, 9/19/18, and 10/4/18. The first three attempts were rescheduled pursuant to Plaintiffs’ requests. Plaintiffs then refused to sit for the depositions until Defendant provided its PMQ as to video preservation or stipulated that it would not refer to any video at trial.

Defendant’s motion to compel are granted. CCP §2025.450(a). Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Defense Counsel are ordered to work together to schedule a time, date, and location for Maria and Claudia Escobar’s depositions. The depositions must go forward within twenty days. Defendant’s notices of deposition also include requests for production. However, the moving papers fail to show good cause for production of the documents sought, as required by §2025.450(b)(1). The Court declines to enter an order compelling Plaintiffs to produce documents.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory unless a party acted with substantial justification. CCP §2025.450(g)(1). Here, Defendant has not refused to produce the additional PMQ and was only served with the notice of deposition on 1/17/19. Additionally, the three employees already deposed agree that there is no security surveillance of the area in question. The Court finds that Defendant has acted with substantial justification.

Plaintiffs have not shown substantial justification. Defendant requests $1,545 for each motion. Defendant declares that each motion took approximately six hours at a rate of $165 per hour. Defendant also lists three hours for reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply and one hour in preparation and attending the hearing. The Court awards three hours for preparation of the motions. The motions are nearly identical. The Court awards $990 in attorneys’ fees. The Court awards $120 in costs for the motions. Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiffs and their attorney of record, jointly and severally; they are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through their attorney of record, in the total amount of $1,110 within twenty days.