Case Number: LC098775 Hearing Date: June 10, 2014 Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

ROBERT BAUTISTA, et al.,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
VISVALDIS PAUKULIS, et al.,
Defendant(s).

Case No.: LC098775

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #52
June 10, 2014

Defendant, Visvaldis Paukulis’s Motion for a Protective Order is Denied.

Defendant, Paukulis’s Motion to Consolidate is Granted. LC098775 and BC524526 are consolidated for all purposes. All future documents must be filed in LC098775. All future hearing dates must be scheduled in LC098775. Any pending hearing dates in BC524526 are advanced to today’s date and vacated.

1. Background Facts
Plaintiffs, Robert, Trang, and Angela Bautista filed LC098775 against Defendant, Visvaldis Paukulis for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Of note, two other actions have also been filed arising out of the same accident. LC098889 (Paukulis v. Robert Bautista) has been settled. BC524526 (Angela Bautista v. Robert Bautista and Paukulis) remains pending, and is subject to a motion to consolidate, on calendar today.

2. Motion for Protective Order
Paukulis, in LC098775, noticed the deposition of non-party witness Kayla M. Afshari; that deposition went forward on 2/08/13. Present at the deposition were Brian Plessala on behalf of the Bautistas, Andrew Hubert on behalf of Paukulis, Robert Worth on behalf of Paukulis, and Daniel M. McGee on behalf of Robert Bautista.

On 2/03/14, Bautista, in connection with BC524526, served a notice of deposition of Afshari, seeking to take her deposition on 2/28/14.

On 2/21/14, Paukulis filed the instant motion for a protective order, seeking to preclude the deposition of Afshari from going forward. Paukulis contends this is a second deposition of the same witness, and it is prohibited by CCP §2025.610(a) and (b).

The motion for a protective order is denied for two reasons. First, it does not appear Afshari objects to being deposed again. As Bautista correctly argues in opposition, it is questionable whether Paukulis has standing to seek a protective order on Afshari’s behalf. Notably, Paukulis does not address this argument in reply.

To the extent Paukulis is seeking a protective order to protect himself from having to attend the second deposition of Afshari, the Court finds the motion lacks merit. LC098775 and BC524526 are not, at this time, consolidated cases. They are two separate and independent pending cases. There is no authority for the position that a party who has been deposed in one case cannot also be deposed in another case, no matter how related those two cases may be. While it is true that it appears Bautista’s counsel for both actions was present at the prior deposition, there is still no authority for precluding a second deposition in an entirely separate case.

Paukulis seeks sanctions in connection with the moving papers. Because the motion is denied, the request for sanctions is likewise denied. The Court notes that Bautista does not seek sanctions in connection with the opposition, and none are imposed.

3. Motion to Consolidate
At this time, Paukulis moves to consolidate the two remaining actions that arise out of the accident, LC098775 and BC524526. Notably, the cases were deemed related on 3/11/14 and are both pending in D-92.

The Court finds it is in the interest of justice to consolidate these two actions for all purposes going forward. The two actions arise out of the same accident and consolidation will result in conservation of judicial resources. Notably, no party objects to consolidation of the matters. The two matters are ordered consolidated with LC098775 acting as the lead case; all future documents must be filed in LC098775 and all future hearings must be scheduled in LC098775. Any pending hearing dates in BC524526 are advanced to this date and vacated.

The Court notes that the consolidation order applies going forward, and does not apply retroactively. The order, therefore, does not affect the Court’s analysis above, which permits the second deposition of Afshari to go forward.

Dated this 10th day of June, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court