Genaro Garcia Leon, et al. v. State of California, et al

Case Number

23CV03682

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 05/08/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motions to Compel (5)

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Genaro Garcia Leon, as successor in interest to Daniel Garcia, deceased, Teresa De. Jesus Garcia, as successor in interest to Daniel Garcia,

Deceased: Ariella E. Perry                             

For Defendant Roy T. Begun: Self-Represented

For Defendants Mike Phelan and San Miguel Garbage Company, Inc.: Christopher M. Cotter

For Defendant Kenneth Lee Tippery: Self-Represented

For Defendants Natalia Kyme Stallworth and The Estate of Natalia Kyme Stallworth: No appearance

                                               

RULING

For the reasons set forth herein:

 

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant Roy T. Begun’s deposition and production of documents at deposition is granted.
   1. Roy T. Begun shall appear for deposition at a date properly noticed by Plaintiffs, to take place no later than June 28, 2024, and shall produce all responsive documents to the document request included with the notice of deposition.
2. Plaintiffs’ motions to compel responses to form interrogatories (set one) and requests for production of documents (set one) are granted.
   1. Roy T. Begun shall provide code compliant responses to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents, without objections, no later than May 29, 2024.
3. Plaintiffs shall give notice of this ruling.

The Trial Date of 8/28/24 and the MSC Date of 8/2/24 and the Final CMC Date of 6/26/24 are all confirmed; the Court acknowledges the 4/5/24 amending Doe 2 to National Logistics LLC with no POS filed.

Background

This action commenced on August 23, 2023, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiffs Genaro Garcia Leon, as successor in interest to Daniel Garcia, deceased, and Teresa De Jesus Garcia, as successor in interest to Daniel Garcia (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against Defendants State of California (“State”), Natalia Kyme Stallworth, the Estate of Natalie Kyme Stallworth, Roy T. Begun, Mike Phelan, Kenneth Lee Tippery, and California Highway Patrol. (“CHP”) The complaint sets forth causes of action for: (1) Negligence as against Stallworth, Phelan, Tippery, and Begun; (2) Negligence pursuant to Government Code sections 814 and 815 et seq. as against State and CHP; and (3) Negligence pursuant to Vehicle Code section 17001 as against State and CHP.

As alleged in the complaint:

Genaro Garcia Leon and Teresa De Jesus Garcia are the parents of decedent Daniel Garcia. (Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 4.)

On August 25, 2021, decedent Daniel Garcia was travelling on highway 101 southbound in the number one lane north of Dos Pueblos Canyon Road. (Complaint, ¶ 18.) At the same time, Stallworth was being pursued by law enforcement and was speeding in her 2013 Volkswagen Jetta, on highway 101 northbound. (Complaint, ¶ 19.) Stallworth swerved left to avoid a parked commercial vehicle in the number two lane of highway 101 northbound, which was negligently parked by Tippery, causing her to cross the median and begin traveling northbound in the southbound lane. (Ibid.) At the same time, Phelan was traveling on highway 101 southbound, directly in front of Garcia, in the number one lane in a truck and trailer, in violation of California Vehicle Code. (Complaint, ¶ 20.) As Stallworth continued on northbound highway 101, in the southbound lanes, Phelan moved his vehicle to the right causing Stallworth’s vehicle to collide with Garcia’s vehicle head-on causing Garcia’s death. (Ibid.) Stallworth also died. (Complaint, ¶ 21.) At the time of the incident Stallworth was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. (Complaint, ¶ 28.)

CHP officers Daniel Backe and Bodgan Vysochin, while driving in the course and scope of their employment with CHP, “failed to safely operate their vehicle, and engaged in a dangerous and reckless pursuit of [Stallworth] causing her to drive in speeds in excess of 100 mph. As a result of Defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care, [Stallworth] lost control of her vehicle, causing injuries and death to DANIEL GARCIA and wrongful death damages to Plaintiff.” (Complaint, ¶ 33.) “Because DANIEL BACKE and BODGAN VYSOCHIN were employees of Defendant CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL at all times described herein, Defendant CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL is liable for the injuries and death of Decedent DANIEL GARCIA, and the wrongful death damages suffered by Plaintiffs, and proximately caused by DANIEL BACKE and BODGAN VYSOCHIN.” (Complaint, ¶ 43.)

Some named Defendants have since been dismissed and others have been substituted in for Doe Defendants. As relevant to the present motions, Begun is still a Defendant in this action. Begun filed his answer to the complaint on October 31, 2023, asserting a general denial and six affirmative defenses.

On January 3, 2024, Plaintiffs served Begun with a notice of taking deposition and request for production of documents with a January 30, 2024 deposition date. (Perry Dec., ¶ 5 & Exh. 1.) Begun did not appear at the deposition and Plaintiffs received no objections or other response to the notice. (Ibid.) On March 20, 2024, Plaintiffs sent meet and confer correspondence to Begun regarding the non-appearance at deposition. (Id. at ¶ 6 & Exh. 2.)

On December 7, 2023, both Plaintiffs served Begun with form interrogatories, set one as well as requests for production of documents, set one. (Perry Dec., ¶ 5 & Exh. 1.) Plaintiffs received no responses to the form interrogatories or requests for production. (Ibid.) On February 5, 2024, Plaintiffs sent a meet and confer letter to Begun regarding Begun’s failure to respond. (Id. at ¶ 6 & Exh. 2.)

Plaintiffs now move to compel Begun’s deposition, with production of documents, as well as to compel Begun to respond to the form interrogatories and requests for production of documents.

No opposition or other responsive document has been filed by Begun.

Analysis

“A trial Court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery, may not use its discretion to extend the limits on discovery beyond those authorized by the Legislature, and should prefer partial to outright denials of discovery.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the Court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

            Deposition and Production of Documents

“If, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

“Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)

“(a) A party desiring to take the oral deposition of any person shall give notice in writing. The deposition notice shall state all of the following, in at least 12-point type:

“(1) The address where the deposition will be taken.

“(2) The date of the deposition, selected under Section 2025.270, and the time it will commence.

“(3) The name of each deponent, and the address and telephone number, if known, of any deponent who is not a party to the action. If the name of the deponent is not known, the deposition notice shall set forth instead a general description sufficient to identify the person or particular class to which the person belongs.

“(4) The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials, including any electronically stored information, to be produced by the deponent.

“(5) Any intention by the party noticing the deposition to record the testimony by audio or video technology, in addition to recording the testimony by the stenographic method as required by Section 2025.330 and any intention to record the testimony by stenographic method through the instant visual display of the testimony. If the deposition will be conducted using instant visual display, a copy of the deposition notice shall also be given to the deposition officer. Any offer to provide the instant visual display of the testimony or to provide rough draft transcripts to any party which is accepted prior to, or offered at, the deposition shall also be made by the deposition officer at the deposition to all parties in attendance. Any party or attorney requesting the provision of the instant visual display of the testimony, or rough draft transcripts, shall pay the reasonable cost of those services, which may be no greater than the costs charged to any other party or attorney.

“(6) Any intention to reserve the right to use at trial a video recording of the deposition testimony of a treating or consulting physician or of an expert witness under subdivision (d) of Section 2025.620. In this event, the operator of the video camera shall be a person who is authorized to administer an oath, and shall not be financially interested in the action or be a relative or employee of any attorney of any of the parties.

“(7) The form in which any electronically stored information is to be produced, if a particular form is desired.

“(8)(A) A statement disclosing the existence of a contract, if any is known to the noticing party, between the noticing party or a third party who is financing all or part of the action and either of the following for any service beyond the noticed deposition:

“(i) The deposition officer.

“(ii) The entity providing the services of the deposition officer.

“(B) A statement disclosing that the party noticing the deposition, or a third party financing all or part of the action, directed his or her attorney to use a particular officer or entity to provide services for the deposition, if applicable.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.220, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff’s notice fully complies with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.220 and 2025.230.

Begun will be ordered to appear for his deposition and produce documents as set forth in the deposition notice. No sanctions were requested.

            Interrogatories and Requests for Production

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.010 provides, “(a) Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath. (b) An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”

“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the Court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the Court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).)

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

“(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The Court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.

“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

“(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.

“(c) The Court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the Court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the Court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

Plaintiffs properly served the interrogatories. Begun will be ordered to provide code compliant responses to the interrogatories. No sanctions were requested.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.010 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.

“(b) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.”

“Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the party making the demand, the Court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the Court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).)

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:

“(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

Plaintiff properly served the request for production of documents. Begun will be ordered to provide code compliant responses. No sanctions were requested.