California Law Regarding Depositions and Discovery

“Any party may obtain discovery…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.” (C.C.P. § 2025.010.)

“The service of a deposition notice under Section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” C.C.P. § 2025.280(a).

“It is established that a litigant has the right to take a proper deposition, and to receive responsive answers to proper questions…for the purposes of discovery or for use as evidence, or for both purposes.” Beverly Hills Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County, 195 Cal. App. 2d 861, 864–65, 16 Cal. Rptr. 236 (2d Dist. 1961) citing I. E. S. Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 44 Cal. 2d 559, 283 P.2d 700 (1955) and Tatkin v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County, 160 Cal. App. 2d 745, 326 P.2d 201 (2d Dist. 1958).

“The statute authorizing the taking of depositions to be used in pending trials should be liberally construed to the end that a litigant in a pending action may be afforded a reasonable opportunity to procure available testimony in support of his cause.” Moran v. Superior Court in and for Sacramento County, 38 Cal. App. 2d 328, 334, 100 P.2d 1096 (3d Dist. 1940).

“A denial of the taking of a deposition at all is, of course, the ultimate in protective orders… [S]ituations will seldom arise where an order that the deposition shall not be taken will be appropriate.” Beverly Hills Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County, 195 Cal. App. 2d 861, 866–67, 16 Cal. Rptr. 236 (2d Dist. 1961).

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, employee or person designated by an organization that is a party…, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410 [regarding defects in deposition notice], 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 or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”C.C.P. § 2025.450(a).

“A motion to compel a party deponent to appear shall comply with both of the following: (1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” C.C.P. § 2025.450(b).

”A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” C.C.P. § 2016.040.

The requirement of making a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the issues informally prior to making a motion to compel is designed to encourage parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order. Townsend v. Superior Court, 61 Cal. App. 4th 1431, 1435, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 333 (2d Dist. 1998).

“Good cause” for production of documents may be established where it is shown that the request is made in good faith and that the documents sought are relevant to the subject matter and material to the issues in the litigation. Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 65 Cal. 2d 583, 588, 55 Cal. Rptr. 772, 422 P.2d 332 (1967). It has been held reversible error to deny discovery where the objectives of discovery—preventing surprise at trial and allowing proper preparation for trial—are defeated by the denial. (Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 65 Cal. 2d 583, 588, 55 Cal. Rptr. 772, 422 P.2d 332 (1967).)

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct… If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” C.C.P. § 2023.030(a). 

“Misuses of the discovery process include…(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery…(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery…(h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel…discovery.” C.C.P. § 2023.010.

“If a motion [to compel under Section 2025.450(a)] is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction…in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (C.C.P. § 2023.450(g)(1).)

The purpose of discovery sanctions is …to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented. Do v. Superior Court, 109 Cal. App. 4th 1210, 1213, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 855 (4th Dist. 2003).