Axel Chavez vs Lisa A Cervantes et al

"If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party ... 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...." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.450, subd. (a).) The moving party has the burden of proof. (Evid. Code Sec. 500.)

"Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.420, subd. (a).) "The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.420, subd. (b).) The moving party has the burden of proof. (Evid. Code Sec. 500.)

Under the apex doctrine, "when a plaintiff seeks to depose a corporate president or other official at the highest level of corporate management, and that official moves for a protective order to prohibit the deposition, the trial court should first determine whether the plaintiff has shown good cause that the official has unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable information. If not ... the trial court should issue the protective order and first require the plaintiff to obtain the necessary discovery through less-intrusive methods." (Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1289 (Liberty Mutual).)

Here, this action was initiated in February 2026. At the time of this order, this case has been pending for over six months. "Pleading deficiencies generally do not affect either party's right to conduct discovery [citation] and this right (and corresponding obligation to respond) is particularly important to a plaintiff in need of discovery to amend its complaint [citation]." (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436, fn. 3.)

An FAC was filed on July 31, 2026. The FAC establishes that the claims (and likely defenses) in this action depend heavily on Auth's personal knowledge and involvement. Even if a demurrer were eventually sustained, in whole or in part as to certain claims against Auth, he would still be a witness with unique personal knowledge. The apex doctrine does not support a protective order under these circumstances. (Liberty Mutual, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 1289.)

Defendants have not carried their burden to demonstrate unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.420, subd. (b); Evid. Code Sec. 500.) The deposition of Auth is appropriate discovery pertaining to a claim or defense in this action. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2025.010, 2017.010.) The deposition of Auth may move forward. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.210, subd. (b).)

The motion for protective order by plaintiffs will be denied and the motion to compel this deposition by defendants will be granted. The parties shall meet and confer over a date, time, and location for plaintiffs to take the deposition of Auth. The deposition shall take place on or before September 30, 2026.

Tentative Ruling: Axel Chavez vs Lisa A Cervantes et al Tentative Ruling: Axel Chavez vs Lisa A Cervantes et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 08/28/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings CMC; Demurrer Tentative Ruling Tentative not yet posted.