In People v. Superior Ct. of Riverside Cnty., No. E084854, 2025 WL 1833861, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. July 3, 2025), the Court of Appeals found that the District Attorneys suing under the Rosenthal Act were still subject to the Discovery Act’s “PMQ” deponent requirement.
The district attorneys of four counties brought a civil enforcement action on behalf of the People of the State of California. They here challenge a trial court discovery ruling by petition for writ of mandate. We publish our opinion to clarify the standard for determining whether the defendant in a civil enforcement action may require the People to designate and produce for deposition a person most qualified to testify on their behalf (PMQ) per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230.1
Real party in interest Credit One Bank, N.A. (Credit One) noticed the People’s deposition on 25 topics, including two document requests. The People here challenge an order denying in part their request for a protective order. The trial court found the People must designate a PMQ but limited the topics and document requests. The People dispute that they may be required to designate a PMQ, asking that we find as a matter of first impression that the People are not a person or entity subject to deposition under section 2025.010. They also argue the PMQ deposition Credit One seeks is tantamount to a deposition of opposing counsel, and the trial court erred by failing to consider and apply the limitations on such depositions articulated in Carehouse Convalescent Hospital v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1558, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 129 (Carehouse) and similar authority. We reject the first argument but agree with the second. That is, we reject the notion that the People (through PMQs) may never be deposed, but Credit One must first demonstrate “ ‘extremely’ good cause” for the deposition. (Carehouse, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1562, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 129.) The trial court did not apply this standard. We therefore grant the petition and order that the trial court reconsider the People’s motion for a protective order.
