Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450(a) and 2025.480(a), Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant to designate and produce a PMK for the following noticed topics:

Topic 1: “PLAINTIFF requests that DEFENDANT produce a deponent to testify regarding the cleaning and maintenance POLICIES AND PROCEDURES at the SUBJECT PREMISES,

34-2021-00311890-CU-PO-GDS: Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson 10/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel PMK for Deposition in Department 54

specifically in treatment areas. This includes the frequency, methods, and documentation of routine cleaning, such as the existence of cleaning logs, records, or electronic tracking systems. Additionally, the deponent should testify about the clinic’s established spill response protocols, including the procedures for identifying, reporting, cleaning, and securing areas affected by spills or other hazards. The deposition should also cover the specific employees responsible for cleaning and maintenance, how they are notified of issues requiring immediate attention, and the availability of cleaning supplies and equipment for immediate spill response. Furthermore, the deponent should provide information regarding any internal audits, reviews, or evaluations conducted to ensure compliance with safety and maintenance standards.”

Topic 3: “PLAINTIFF requests that DEFENDANT produce a deponent to testify regarding the internal communication and staff response concerning the INCIDENT. The testimony should include how the spill was reported internally to management and staff before the INCIDENT, the role of specific employees in responding to the spill, and the actions they took both before and after the INCIDENT. Additionally, the deponent should provide information on whether the clinic conducted any post incident review or evaluation of its cleaning procedures, including any corrective actions taken as a result of the INCIDENT.”

Topic 4: PLAINTIFF requests that DEFENDANT produce a deponent to testify regarding the training programs and awareness initiatives provided to employees in relation to spill response and safety protocols at the SUBJECT PREMISES. This includes details about the specific training employees receive on identifying and responding to spills or other UNSAFE CONDITIONS, particularly in treatment areas. The deposition should also cover how often spill response and safety training is conducted or updated, whether employees undergo competency assessments or refresher courses, and whether there are disciplinary actions or consequences for employees who fail to follow cleaning and spill-handling procedures.”

Topic 5: “PLAINTIFF requests that DEFENDANT produce a deponent to testify regarding the policies and procedures in place at the SUBJECT PREMISES concerning patrons bringing beverages into treatment areas. This includes whether the clinic has an official policy restricting beverages in treatment areas, the enforcement measures in place to ensure compliance with the policy, and the extent to which employees are trained on enforcing beverage restrictions and handling policy violation.”

Topic 6: “PLAINTIFF requests that DEFENDANT produce a deponent to testify regarding the existence, placement, and visibility of any signs or notices advising patrons against bringing beverages into restricted areas of the clinic, any prior incidents involving patrons spilling beverages in treatment areas, and the protocols followed in responding to such incidents.”

The Court finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently met and conferred prior to filing the motion.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.450 versus Code of Civil Procedure Section

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311890-CU-PO-GDS: Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson 10/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel PMK for Deposition in Department 54

2025.480[1]

Inexplicably, Plaintiffs’ motion cites to both Section 2025.450(a) and 2025.480(a) as the statutes supporting their motion to compel Defendant’s PMK deposition.[2]

Section 2025.450(a) provides, “[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.”

Section 2025.480(a) states, “[i]f a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.”

Defendant argues that the motion is untimely pursuant to Section 2025.480(b) because it was filed more than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition. Defendant did not provide any evidence to support its argument. In reply, Plaintiffs emphasize that the deposition was never “completed.” Plaintiffs submit a portion of the deposition transcript wherein Plaintiffs’ counsel states “We are going to leave to the deposition open as we continue to meet and confer over a – over topics of PMK categories.” (Declaration of Justin Farahi in Reply, Ex. A.) The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that since the deposition was not completed, the motion is timely.

Nonetheless, the Court finds that Section 2025.450(a), not Section 2025.480(a) applies here because Defendant clearly stated in its objections that it would not produce a PMK on Topics 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. As a result, it is necessary for Plaintiffs to move to compel the appearance of the PMK on those topics, rather than to compel Brower to answer further questions when she was not designated as the PMK for those topics.

Analysis

Section 2025.450(a) allows a party to move to compel a deponent’s attendance where the noticed party has not served a valid objection under Section 2025.410.

Plaintiffs argue, without citing to any legal authority, that Defendant untimely served its objections five days prior to the deposition. The Court disagrees. The objection must be served at least 3 calendar days before the deposition. (If made on the third day preceding the deposition,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311890-CU-PO-GDS: Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson 10/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel PMK for Deposition in Department 54

personal service is required on the party noticing the deposition.) (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.410(b).)

The Court will now turn to whether Defendant served a “valid objection under Section 2025.410.”

Section 2025.410 section refers to errors or irregularities with respect to compliance with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2025.210). Article 2 deals with the service of the deposition notice, the content of the notice, including Section 2025.230, which requires that a PMK deposition notice “describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested.”

In the case at bar, Defendant objected to the entire notice on the grounds that “[t]he Deposition Notice fails to properly ‘describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested’ in accordance with Section 2025.230 of the Code of Civil Procedure. . . .” (Farahi Decl., Ex. B, 2:3-5.) Thus, Defendant served an objection under Section 2025.410.

Although Defendant served an objection under Section 2025.410, the Court finds that the objection lacked validity because Topics 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were described with more than reasonable particularity, and Defendant makes no attempt in its opposition to justify this objection. Given that Defendant did not serve a valid objection under Section 2025.410, and failed to produce a PMK on these Topics, the motion to compel is GRANTED. By no later than November 21, 2025, Defendant shall produce its PMK(s) for deposition on Topics 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, unless the parties agree in writing to a later date.

Plaintiffs’ request that “the Court order the witness to answer all relevant questions on these topics without improper objections or instructions not to answer” (Motion, 2:12-13) is DENIED.

Defendant’s request in opposition that the Court issue a protective order narrowing the Topics and reducing the length of the deposition is DENIED. The Court will not consider such a request in opposition to a motion. Defendant must file a properly noticed motion for protective order.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanction pursuant to Section 2025.450(g)(1) against Defendant ant its attorneys David R. Casady and Leslie M. Culley, jointly and severally, is GRANTED. The Court finds that Defendant did not act with substantial justification and no other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. The Court will award a reduced amount of $860 (2 hrs x $400/hr plus $60 filing fee). Sanctions shall be paid by no later than November 21, 2025. If not paid by that date, Plaintiffs may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311890-CU-PO-GDS: Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson 10/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel PMK for Deposition in Department 54

Moving party has indicated the incorrect address in its notice of motion. The correct address for Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento California 95814. Moving party shall notify responding party(ies) immediately.

[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. [2] Plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities, however, does not cite to either statute or

the respective statutory language.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311890-CU-PO-GDS: Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson 10/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel PMK for Deposition in Department 54

13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.