Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00973/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00973-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product Liability

---

1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 10cv973-MMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO MACIAS; MARIA TERESA

MACIAS,

Civil No. 10cv973-MMA (BGS)

Plaintiffs,

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL MARIO

MACIAS’S ORAL DEPOSITION

[DOC. NO. 15.]

v.

SPENCER RIVAS PEREZ; SUSAN ARCY;

ESTATE OF SUSAN ARCY; FORD MOTOR

CO.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Maria Teresa Macias’s motion for a protective order

precluding her oral deposition and Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff Mario Macias’s oral

deposition. (Doc. No. 15.) The Court has reviewed the parties’ arguments, and for the following

reasons, DENIES Maria Teresa Macias’s motion for protective order and GRANTS Defendant’s

motion to compel Mario Macias’s oral deposition. 

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On May 13, 2007, a vehicle crash occurred in the desert of southeast California. The

subject Ford F-150 rolled at least twice and two of the vehicle’s occupants suffered fatalities. 

Plaintiffs Mario Macias and Maria Teresa Macias, the parents of decedent Gabriela Macias, filed

this lawsuit alleging products liability causes of action claiming that the roof was crushed during

Case 3:10-cv-00973-MMA-BGS Document 30 Filed 04/27/11 Page 1 of 5
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

There is a currently pending motion by Plaintiffs to reopen fact discovery. See Doc. Nos. 22, 26. 

1

2 10cv973-MMA

the accident and that negligent manufacturing and/or design defect caused the fatal injuries to

Gabriela Macias. 

On May 19, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the Superior Court of California,

County of Imperial. Plaintiffs did not serve Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) with

the Summons and Complaint until January 29, 2010. On February 26, 2010, Defendant served

Plaintiffs with interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Plaintiffs did not respond

to these discovery requests. On May 5, 2010, Defendant removed the case to federal court

pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1.) 

On September 13, 2010, the Court held an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference

(“ENE”). (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiffs Mario and Maria Teresa Macias appeared in person. The Court

held a telephonic Case Management Conference on November 3, 2010, and issued the operative

scheduling order. (Doc. No. 11.) The scheduling order set April 1, 2011, as the deadline for the

completion of all fact discovery. (Id.) On January 13, 2011, Ford noticed Plaintiffs depositions to 1

take place February 16, 2011. (Joint Mot., Doc No. 15 at 2.) On February 14, 2011, Plaintiffs’

counsel informed Defendant that Mrs. Macias would not be available for her deposition due to

dialysis treatments. (Id. at 8.) At the request of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Macias’s deposition was

continued to March 9, 2011. (Id. at 2.) However, on March 4, 2011, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed

Defendant that Mr. Macias’s deposition could not go forward on March 9, but stated that

alternative dates would be provided. (Id.) To date, Plaintiffs’ counsel has not provided any

alternative date for Mr. Macias’s deposition. 

I. Maria Teresa Macias’s Motion for Protective Order

Defendant has the right to take the oral deposition of a party or witness before trial. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1). “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or

person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or

more of the following: (1) that the disclosure or discovery not be had; (2) that the disclosure or

discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of time or

place; (3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by

the party seeking discovery. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The party seeking the protective order

Case 3:10-cv-00973-MMA-BGS Document 30 Filed 04/27/11 Page 2 of 5
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 10cv973-MMA

has a heavy burden of demonstrating the good cause for such an order. Beckman Indus., Inc. v.

International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). “In seeking to prevent or delay a

deposition by reason of medical grounds, the moving party has the burden of making a specific and

documented factual showing that the deposition would be dangerous to the deponent’s health.” 

Medlin v. Andrew, 113 F.R.D. 650, 653 (M.D. N.C. 1987). 

Plaintiff Mrs. Macias requests that the Court enter an order precluding Defendant from

ever taking her oral deposition. Mrs. Macias receives dialysis at home and indicated to her

counsel that she is weak and exhausted after her treatments. (Joint Mot., Doc. No. 15 at 6.) Mrs.

Macias will agree to deposition by written questions. (Id.) Defendant objects to Mrs. Macias’s

request for a protective order prohibiting her oral deposition. (Id.) Defendant offered to take her

deposition at a convenient location and to provide Mrs. Macias with breaks or will proceed over

the course of various days in order to accommodate her treatment schedule. (Id. at 8.) Defendant

argues that it “must be allowed an opportunity to assess her credibility and demeanor as a witness.” (Id. at 15.) 

Mrs. Macias has not come forward with any evidence that her health might be impaired

by the deposition. The Court advised Plaintiffs’ counsel to provide a declaration from Mrs.

Macias’s doctor to support the need for a protective order, however, no sworn statement was

included with the motion. Furthermore, Mrs. Macias herself did not provide a sworn declaration

to support her request to be excused from sitting for an oral deposition. Given the lack of specific

and documented evidence showing that the oral deposition is likely to be dangerous to her health,

the Court does not find good cause to require deposition by written questions. Moreover, it does

not appear that submitting to deposition by written questions would cause Mrs. Macias less

hardship than sitting for an oral deposition because a deposition by written questions still requires

her to be present before an officer and orally respond to the written questions. Finally, Mrs.

Macias’s daughter, Mariana Macias, testified that her mother leaves the house to go grocery

shopping and to pick Mariana’s daughter up from school. (Doc. No. 27 at 2.)

Defendant’s need to prepare a defense outweighs the generalized claims of hardship that

Plaintiff has made. Defendant will be significantly prejudiced if Mrs. Macias is unavailable to

testify at trial and Defendant was foreclosed from preserving her testimony through oral deposiCase 3:10-cv-00973-MMA-BGS Document 30 Filed 04/27/11 Page 3 of 5
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 10cv973-MMA

tion. Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion for protective order and directs Mrs. Macias to sit

for an oral deposition.

The Court orders Plaintiff Maria Macias to appear for oral deposition no later than May

16, 2011. The deposition may be conducted at a location convenient for Mrs. Macias, including at

her home or a health care facility. Mrs. Macias will be permitted to take breaks as needed, but

Defendant is entitled to depose her for up to seven hours. 

II. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Mario Macias to Sit for Oral Deposition

 Defendant moves to compel Mr. Macias to sit for his oral deposition and requests

monetary sanctions. (Joint Mot., Doc. No. 15 at 2-3.) The Court may, on motion, order sanctions

when the party fails, after being served with proper notice, to appear for the party’s deposition. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). 

 Defendant noticed Plaintiff Mario Macias’s deposition for February 16, 2011. (Joint

Mot., Doc. No. 15 at 2.) Plaintiffs’ counsel called Defendant’s counsel on February 14, 2011 and

asked that the deposition be continued to March 9, 2011—a mutually acceptable date. (Id.) On

March 4, 2011, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Defendant that Mr. Macias could not go forward with

his deposition on March 9 because he had his foot amputated. As of April 26, 2011, Plaintiffs’

counsel had not provided Defendant with alternative dates for Mr. Macias’s deposition. Plaintiffs

oppose the motion to compel Mr. Macias to sit for an oral deposition and oppose the request for

sanctions. 

Although Mr. Macias is not unwilling to sit for deposition under any circumstance, his

counsel argues that his availability depends on his recovery. Mr. Macias, however, has not

provided the Court with any evidence to indicate that his health precludes him from submitting to

an oral deposition at this time. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not include a declaration from any of Mr.

Macias’s treating doctors to substantiate the request to indefinitely continue his deposition. The

Court does not have any information from a doctor or from Mr. Macias himself to determine the

least intrusive manner to conduct his deposition. Moreover, Mariana Macias testified that her

father is able to leave the convalescent home for a couple of hours at a time and did so on March

26, 2011. (Supplemental Opp’n, Doc. No. 27 at 2.) Mariana further testified that her father is able

to listen and respond to questions. (Id.) 

Case 3:10-cv-00973-MMA-BGS Document 30 Filed 04/27/11 Page 4 of 5
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 10cv973-MMA

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel and orders Mr. Macias

to sit for his oral deposition no later than May 16, 2011. The deposition may be conducted at a

location convenient for Mr. Macias, including at his home or a health care facility. Mr. Macias

will be permitted to take breaks as needed, but Defendant is entitled to depose him for up to seven

hours. 

The Court, however, DENIES Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions. Mr.

Macias was substantially justified in failing to appear for his deposition because he was in the

hospital having his foot amputated and continues to receive regular medical treatment for his

health concerns. Furthermore, Defendant received advance notice that Mr. Macias would not be

able to appear and testify. 

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders:

1. Maria Teresa Macias to sit for her oral deposition no later than May 16, 2011.

2. Mario Macias to sit for his oral deposition no later than May 16, 2011.

3. Fact discovery is not continued for any other purpose. These depositions were

noticed prior to the conclusion of fact discovery and the Court’s intervention

was also requested prior to the conclusion of fact discovery. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2011

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:10-cv-00973-MMA-BGS Document 30 Filed 04/27/11 Page 5 of 5