Q: Producing person for deposition instead of verifiable data - oppressive and burdensome

A: Under California law, the use of depositions as a means of obtaining information that could be more easily obtained through other discovery methods, such as interrogatories or requests for production of documents, can be considered oppressive, burdensome, and harassing, particularly for self-represented (in pro per) plaintiffs.

California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 2025.460 provides grounds for a court to issue a protective order to prevent the taking of a deposition. One such ground is when "the selected deposition date is unreasonably distant in time from the date of the deposition subpoena or is unduly burdensome or oppressive." Additionally, CCP § 2019.030 states that discovery methods should be used in a manner that is not "unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation."

If the defense insists on producing a person for deposition instead of providing verifiable data or documents that could easily satisfy the plaintiff's request, the plaintiff may argue that this is an oppressive and burdensome tactic. This is especially true if the plaintiff is self-represented and may not have the same resources or legal expertise as the defense counsel.

In such a situation, the plaintiff could file a motion for a protective order under CCP § 2025.420, seeking to limit or prohibit the deposition and compel the defense to provide the requested information through less burdensome means. The court would then consider the facts of the case and determine whether the defense's insistence on a deposition is justified or if it constitutes an oppressive and burdensome discovery tactic.