Case Number: 19STCV31244 Hearing Date: December 10, 2019 Dept: 47

Mary Nelson, by and through her Successor in Interest, Elmer Pogue, v. CHA Hollywood Medical Center, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL PMK DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Mary Nelson, by and through her successor in interest, Elmer Pogue

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant CHA Hollywood Medical Center, L.P.[1]

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Mary Nelson’s successor in interest alleges that Defendants committed elder abuse while she was an inpatient at the Defendant hospital.

Plaintiff moves to compel the person most knowledgeable (PMK) deposition of Defendant CHA Hollywood Medical Center, L.P. and production of documents.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Mary Nelson’s motion to compel the person most knowledgeable (PMK) deposition of Defendant CHA Hollywood Medical Center, L.P. and production of documents is CONTINUED to January 13, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. If Defendant produces its PMK and any documents before the continued hearing date, Plaintiff is to either remove the motion from the calendar or file a revised Separate Statement indicating the disputes that remain to be resolved. The revised Separate Statement, if any, must be filed by December 30, 2019 and sent electronically to Defendant’s counsel. If Defendant chooses to file an opposing Separate Statement, it must be filed by January 6, 2019.

The parties’ opposing requests for sanctions will be considered with the continued motion, if necessary.

DISCUSSION:

Motion To Compel PMK Deposition and Production of Documents

This Court is ready, willing and able to resolve any legitimate discovery disputes that may occur in this, or in any other action. This is a dispute, however, that the parties should have been able to resolve amongst themselves without court intervention.

There is a little-known line from a famous play which states: “My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: Words without thoughts never to heaven go.”[2]

Counsel are strongly suggested to give more thought to their actions, rather than their words, or there will be appropriate consequences in the future.

Here, Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK and to compel Defendant to produce documents at the deposition.

This motion is, at best, premature. A motion brought under CCP § 2025.450 may be brought at any time, and a motion brought under CCP § 2025.480 may be filed up to 60 days “after the completion of the record of the deposition.” (CCP § 2025.480(b).) Where a deponent serves an objection to a deposition notice and does not appear, the “record of the deposition” is complete no later than the day set for the deposition. (Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 131-136.) Plaintiff was not required to wait until near the end of the 60-day limit – approximately December 28 – to file this motion, but the exhibits to the parties’ declarations indicate that they were still in the process of meeting and conferring when Plaintiff filed this motion. Defendant has not refused to produce a PMK and has not refused to produce all documents. At this stage, there is no reason to compel Defendant to do what it is willing to do, keeping in mind that depositions of the parties are central to any case, and the Court will not hesitate to compel them if it becomes clear that a party is engaging in gamesmanship. Given that this case was just filed 94 days ago (as of December 6) and, as discussed above, there was no imminent deadline requiring the parties to cut their meet and confer efforts short, it is the Court’s view that the parties should attempt to resolve this dispute without court intervention.

Accordingly, the motion is CONTINUED to January 13, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. If Defendant has not produced its PMK and has not produced any documents before that date, the motion will be considered as filed. If Defendant produces its PMK and any documents before the continued hearing date, Plaintiff is to either remove the motion from the calendar or file a revised Separate Statement indicating the disputes that remain to be resolved. The revised Separate Statement, if any, must be filed by December 30, 2019 and sent electronically to Defendant’s counsel. If Defendant chooses to file an opposing Separate Statement, it must be filed by January 6, 2019.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2019 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.

[1] The caption of the opposition refers to “Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center,” which Plaintiff alleges is the fictitious name of Defendant CHA Hollywood Medical Center. (Complaint ¶ 2.)

[2] William Shakespeare, Hamlet (III, iii, 100-103.)