Case Number: BC627285 Hearing Date: January 16, 2018 Dept: 97

26

nancy johnson,

Plaintiff,

v.

ac/dc ice cream, inc. dba baskin robbins, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC627285

Hearing Date: January 16, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiff’s motion to compel attendance of defendant symphony northridge’s pmk at deposition

BACKGROUND

In this action, Plaintiff Nancy Johnson (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she tripped and fell while walking near the premises of Defendants properties. The complaint, filed July 25, 2016, alleges causes of action for premises liability and general negligence against Defendants AC/DC Ice Cream, Inc., dba Baskin Robbins, Symphony Northridge, LLC (“Symphony”), and The Matt West Company.

On December 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel the attendance of Symphony’s PMK at deposition and for the production of documents that were propounded to be produced at the deposition. The motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to CCP §2025.450, “[i]f, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

Discussion

On October 3, 2017, Plaintiff served a Notice of Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable of Symphony and for Production of Documents, setting the deposition for October 24, 2017. (Mot., Ex. 1.) On October 18, 2017, Symphony served its objections to the deposition notice, stating that the document requests were numerous and that they would need an additional 30 days to prepare and produce the documents. (Mot., Ex. 2.) On November 21, 2017, after 30 days, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Symphony’s counsel to inquire about the deposition and documents, and provided 5 additional days to provide possible deposition dates. Despite Plaintiff’s efforts, the issues were not informally resolved.

The motion is unopposed. Although, as represented above, Plaintiff agreed to provide Symphony and its PMK additional time to prepare for the deposition and produce documents, Symphony’s counsel has not coordinated with Plaintiff regarding future proposed deposition dates or that it can and will produce the documents requested in the deposition notice.

//

//

//

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Symphony’s PMK is granted. Symphony is ordered to designate and produce its PMK for deposition and to produce the documents requested in the deposition notice, on a mutually agreeable date to be decided within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted. Symphony and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $760 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this order.