TENTATIVE RULING

Judge Thomas Anderle
Department 3 SB-Anacapa
1100 Anacapa Street
P.O. Box 21107 
Santa Barbara, CA  93121-1107

CIVIL LAW & MOTION

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Order Staying Deposition

Motion for Protective Order Staying Deposition of Defendant; Request for Sanctions

RULING

Defendant’s motion for protective order staying deposition is denied.

ANALYSIS

The authority for a motion for protective order staying a deposition is found in Code of Civil 
Procedure Section 2025.420, subsections (a) and (b), which provide that at any time 
before, during, or after a deposition any party or deponent may, on a showing of good 
cause, obtain an order protecting the party or deponent from unwarranted annoyance, 
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense.  On the issue of sanctions, 
Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.420, subsection (d), provides that the court shall 
impose monetary sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a 
motion for protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanctions acted with 
substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

In her moving papers, defendant advances two arguments in support of her request for a 
protective order.  First, she contends that plaintiff’s action is legally deficient and therefore 
she should be spared the annoyance, costs, and stress of attending her deposition.  In this 
regard, defendant notes that the quiet title claim is unverified, as required by law, that 
plaintiff never held title to the subject property, instead claiming that the property belongs to 
him because of an alleged oral agreement between his mother and stepfather, who are 
now deceased, and that the alleged oral agreement between the two decedents is barred 
by the Statute of Frauds (Civil Code Section 1624), which requires an agreement 
concerning an interest in land to be in writing.

Second, defendant asserts that she should not be required to give a deposition until the 
other defendant in the case, Mr. Dobry, who is the brother of plaintiff’s stepfather and a 
possible claimant to his estate, has been served with legal process and has either 
appeared in the case or had his default taken.  Defendant is concerned that if her 
deposition is not postponed, she may be subject to multiple depositions, creating undue 
hardship.  Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.610(a), new parties are entitled to 
depose a person who was previously deposed in the case without leave of court.

Defendant’s motion is without merit.  The mere fact that defendant feels plaintiff’s action is 
legally deficient is no basis for suspending or staying discovery.  Discovery is available to a 
party as a matter of right, so long as the information requested is not privileged and is 
relevant to the subject matter of the action.  Code of Civil Procedure §2017.010; Emerson 
Electric Company v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1108.  If defendant believes 
plaintiff’s complaint lacks merit, she is free to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings or 
a summary judgment motion.  While it is true that defendant may be deposed twice if Mr. 
Dobry is eventually served and appears in the case, this possibility is an insufficient ground 
for postponing defendant’s deposition.  The complaint was filed more than seven months 
ago and there is not much time left for the parties to complete discovery.  Further, 
defendant’s argument to the contrary, plaintiff is under no obligation to conclude written 
discovery before deposing defendant.  Indeed, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.210
(b) provides that a plaintiff may serve a deposition notice on any date that is 20 days after 
the service of the summons on, or appearance by, any defendant in the case.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for protective order is denied.