Case Number: BC548794??? Hearing Date: October 24, 2016??? Dept: 51
Defendant JPMorgan?s Motion for an Order is GRANTED IN PART.
Plaintiff?s objection to paragraph four of the Bohmholdt declaration is overruled, yet that testimony has no bearing on this Court?s ruling in any event.
First, the Court?s view is that the witness depositions of Jarallah Al Jarallah and Mohammad Al Jarallah (?the Jarallahs?) cannot be compelled to occur in California, even accepting that they are tantamount to plaintiffs in this case. See Code Civ. Proc. ? 1989; Toyota v. Superior Court, 197 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1125 (2011). JPMorgan is correct that Glass v. Superior Court, 204 Cal.App.3d 1048 (1988), provides support for the contrary view. However, this Court?s conclusion is that Glass is an isolated case that does not provide the most persuasive interpretation of what California law is, for the reasons provided in Toyota, which rejects it. In particular, the indications that Glass has hardly been relied upon in its 28 years of existence is striking is striking (Toyota relies in part on a similar observation). As the concurring opinion in Toyota recognized, it is for the Legislature to act clearly to change Section 1989. Thus, as plaintiff proposes, the Court orders the individual depositions of the Jarallahs to occur in either Dubai or Riyadh, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
Secondly, however, the Court?s view of a ?person most qualified? deposition differs. For such a deposition, the deponent is not a natural person and the deponent (i.e., the entity) names the person who will testify. Code Civ. Proc. ? 2025.230. In the Court?s view, it does not matter whether the most likely individual for the deponent to name is in California or not; rather, as a matter of procedure, such a deposition may be compelled in California without limitation by Section 1989. Code Civ. Proc. ? 2025.250(b). Thus, in at the ?deposition of an organization? with a principal office in California, see Section 2025.250(b), that organization is charged with sending an appropriate witness to the California location, regardless of where that individual?s personal residence happens to be. Thus, the PMQ deposition will be compelled as noticed (though a reasonable accommodation to setting the date and time should be made if requested).
Third, on the evidence and argument provided, the Court orders that each of the individual depositions of the Jarallahs may be 14 hours in length.
No sanctions.
Moving party to give notice.