Motion to Compel Deposition
The Court grants Plaintiff/ Cross-Defendant Crystal Lester’s Motion to compel a second session of the deposition of Annabella Real, both in her individual capacity and as the person most qualified for ASRV, LLC d/b/a Capistrano Senior Living. The Court limits the deposition to two hours on the record. The deposition is to be completed on or before June 30, 2026 on a mutually agreeable date and time.
Legal Standard a party may depose a person only once, unless the judge grants leave to take a subsequent deposition. CCP § 2025.610(a), (b). This restriction applies to the deposition of any natural person, including a party, and binds the party who noticed the deposition as well as any other party who received notice of the deposition. CCP § 2025.610(a).
“[F]or good cause shown, the court may grant leave to take a subsequent deposition, and the parties, with the consent of any deponent who is not a party, may stipulate that a subsequent deposition be taken." (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.610(b).)
"Good cause" may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1967) 65 Cal. 2d 583.)
Merits Defendant designated Annabella Real ("Real") as its Person Most Qualified ("PMQ") on 10 of the topics that Plaintiff noticed. (Declaration of Daniel Kalinowski [“DK Dec.”], ¶ 2, Ex. 1.)
As identified in Defendant’s discovery responses, Real is also a percipient witness to events related to Plaintiff’s claims in this employment and wrongful termination action including the decision to terminate Plaintiff and the nature of the work environment. (DK Dec., ¶ 15, Ex. 7.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
At the start of the November 19, 2025 deposition, Defense counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Real’s deposition would be limited to four hours based on Real’s personal obligations, despite also agreeing at the outset of the deposition she was being deposed both as ASRV’s PMK on 10 topics and as an individual. (DK Dec., ¶ 6.) Real testified on the record for a total of 3 hours and 29 minutes. (Id.)
Defense Counsel then unilaterally stopped the deposition at 1:30 p.m. (DK Dec., ¶¶ 7-9, Ex. 3.)
During Real’s deposition, Plaintiff’s Counsel examined her on several, but not all, of the 10 PMQ topics noticed in deposition notice. (DK Dec., ¶ 9.) At the time ASRV’s counsel terminated the deposition, Plaintiff had not completed examination of Real on all PMQ topics or completed her individual capacity examination as noticed. (Id.)
Plaintiff then served a served a Notice of Continued Deposition of Annabella Real as ASRV’s PMQ and in Her Individual Capacity for December 11, 2025. (DK Dec., ¶ 10, Ex. 4.) In response to, on December 5, 2025, ASRV served written objections refusing to produce Real for deposition, claiming undue burden despite Real’s dual capacity requiring extended examination time. (DK Dec., ¶ 11, Ex. 5.) Defendant has refused to produce Real even for 1-2 hours to complete the deposition.
In opposition, Defendant argues that it fully complied with its discovery obligations because it provided Real for almost 4 hours and has provided testimony (from other PMQ designated witnesses and percipient witnesses) totaling almost 25 hours. (Declaration of David L. Martin (“Martin Decl.”) ¶¶2-12.)
Defendant also argues that it is difficult to spare Real as she is the only licensed vocational nurse at the facility. (Martin Decl., ¶3.)
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause to complete the deposition of Real both in her capacity as PMQ for certain topics and as an individual percipient witness. Defense Counsel unilaterally limited the deposition time, unilaterally ended the deposition, and refused to complete the deposition for 1-2 hours as requested, even though not all of the PMQ topics agreed to were covered.
Plaintiff’s Counsel represented on the record that the continued deposition would take at most approximately two hours. It would be conducted remotely via Zoom, requiring no travel. (DK Dec. ¶¶ 7-9, Ex. 3.) It was unreasonable not to produce the witness to complete the deposition.
Based on the fact that Plaintiff has enjoyed to right to hours of of PMK testimony and the precarious nature of deponent’s work schedule, the court in its discretion does not award sanctions.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of this ruling.