Judith Rehfeld vs City of Santa Barbara, Sanctuary Centers of Santa Barbara

Case Number

23CV02551

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 05/01/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

City’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff by Shaun Bauman

City by Sarah Knecht; Tom Shapiro

Sanctuary Centers by Daniel Friedenthal; Jay Brown

Issues

City’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition [Filed 3/13/24; seeks to compel Plaintiff Judith Rehfeld to appear for a deposition and pay costs and sanctions in the amount of $1,250.]

Case Management Conference. [“CMC”]

NOTE: Both matters will be called on the 10 am calendar; appearances on the 8:30 calendar not expected.

RULINGS

City’s Motion is GRANTED. The deposition of Plaintiff Judith Rehfeld will be taken remotely by the City of Santa Barbara on May 15, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. The deposition will continue at the option of City from day to day, excepting Sundays and holidays, until completed, and shall be taken before a person authorized to administer oaths in the State of California. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $1,250 to be paid by Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, by May 15, 2024. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order the Court will consider additional sanctions including evidence prelusion and dismissal of Plaintiff’s case.

CMC

CMCSs

Filed on 4/24/24 by Plaintiff: Shaun Bauman reports; trip and fall on 8/2/22; unaccountable reports no trial date or MSC date set; written discovery to be completed 10/24 (sic).

Filed 4/16/24 by City: Tom Shapiro reports; acknowledges trial date of 9/11/24 and MSC date of 8/2/24; reports the City has filed a motion to compel the Plaintiffs deposition to be heard by this Court on the same date as this CMC, 5-1-24; discovery to be completed per code.

Filed on 4/16/24 by Sanctuary: Daniel R. Friedenthal reports; acknowledges trial date of 9/11/24 and MSC date of 8/2/24; there is no insurance carrier; discovery to be done per code.

The Court: Assumes the report by Plaintiff that there is no trial date and no MSC date set is a clerical error. The Court confirms those dates [trial date of 9/11/24 and MSC date of 8/2/24]; do not stipulate to continue the dates. This is not complicated litigation. Plaintiff alleges she stepped into a hole in a city sidewalk, which caused her to fall and sustain severe injuries. Plaintiff is seeking general damages, special damages for medical expenses and loss of income and earning capacity.

City’s Motion

Filed 3/13/24; 16 pages; summarized; since November of 2023, the City has been attempting to work with Plaintiff’s lawyers to set up a mutually agreeable date to depose the Plaintiff; despite the City's numerous attempts to depose Plaintiff, she has either unilaterally cancelled her deposition, or failed to appear altogether, four times; set out the background in detail.

Opposition

The Court finds no opposition filed; City filed a Notice of No Opposition on 4/24/24.

The Court’s Conclusions

City cannot adequately prepare for the upcoming trial without taking Plaintiff’s deposition. Compelling Plaintiff to appear and testify at a deposition is necessary to avoid prejudicing the City's ability to defend itself.

Trial for this matter is set for September 11, 2024, which is only approximately four months from the date of this Motion. Also, it is important to get this discovery done well before the MSC which is only 90 days away.

This Court frequently encounters these motions on the eve of trial and routinely admonishes counsel for not getting the deposition done months earlier. Here City is only doing what the Court has preached for years.

Sanctions are appropriate and the sum requested is reasonable.