Is It Possible To Depose The People As A PMQ Witness In A Civil Lawsuit In California? Discover What The Law Says And Its Implications.

PMQ Depositions: The General Law In California

In California, in civil litigation, parties have the ability to seek to depose the Person Most Qualified (PMQ) on certain topics, pursuant to CCP 2025.230 (and some other connected sections).

Well, what happens if you want to depose PMQ witnesses of The People of the State of California? Can you try to do it?

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two recently decided the case People v. Superior Court on this issue, which is a matter of first impression. As of 8/7/25, this case is cited as 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 425.

The Quick Facts In This Case

In March 2021, the district attorneys of Riverside, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Santa Clara Counties, on behalf of the People, sued Credit One for violating the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act of California and the Unfair Competition Law…. The People allege that Credit One, either directly or through vendors, engaged in debt collection activities “involving patterns and conduct of unreasonably frequent and harassing phone calls.”

So, the People are a party in this case… and Credit One sought to depose the PMQ of the People on certain PMQ topics. The People objected, filing a protective order. The People argue that “the People” is not a “natural person,” nor is it an “organization” like a “public or private corporation,” “a partnership,” or “an association.” And they emphasize that the People should not be equated with a “government agency,” even though government agencies brought this action on behalf of the People: They argue that the district attorney is not the plaintiff, nor a party to the action, but merely the legal representative of the People.

The Law Here

According to the Court, this is a matter of first impression in which the People are not a person or entity subject to deposition under CCP section 2025.010. The Court here rejects that argument, holding that the PMQ of the People may be deposed against arguments that the People is not a “natural person,” “organization,” etc.

The direct language here is this:
“The People is a party to this action. The first sentence of section 2025.010 of the [CCP] defines a ‘person’ who may be deposed to include ‘any party to the action.’ Taking this sentence in isolation, the People is subject to deposition. And because the People is not a ‘natural person,’ the procedures of section 2025.230 apply, including the requirement that they designate one or more persons most qualified to testify on their behalf on the noticed topics.”

The Next Legal Issue Here

“The parties dispute whether deposing the People amounts to deposing the People’s attorney.”

And the decision here is this: “We find that it does, although that does not necessarily mean the deposition cannot go forward.”

“In considering the propriety of deposing opposing counsel in a particular case, California applies a three-factor test, adopted from the federal majority opinion….”

The Test Is This:

“First, does the proponent have other practicable means to obtain the information? Second, is the information crucial to the preparation of the case? Third, is the information subject to privilege?”

Note: “Credit One disclaims any intent to depose the People’s attorney. Instead, it proposes that district attorneys could ‘educate any of the nearly 650 investigators spread across their offices to serve as their Person Most Qualified declarant.’”

New Law In California

Again, this is new law, as the Court here says: “[n]o appellate authority in California resolves this disagreement.” Although “[s]imilar questions have been considered by federal courts when depositions are noticed under Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

The Court analyzed this case as one brought on behalf of the People by a district attorney (or several of them). And these government agencies are more like a law firm than a corporation, composed primarily of attorneys and non-attorneys working under their direction.

With this, there may be privilege issues if attorneys for the People are deposed. But as the Court says: “The policy concerns raised by such a circumstance… are not limited to privilege problems. The deposition may nonetheless be appropriate, but the noticing party must demonstrate an ‘extremely’ justified cause.”

The Final Decision Here

The Court holds “that in a civil enforcement action brought by a district attorney (or a similar government agency, such as the state Attorney General) on behalf of the People, the defendant may seek to depose the People’s person or persons most qualified pursuant to section 2025.230. If the People seek a protective order, the trial court must analyze whether the deposition should proceed using the Carehouse standard for depositions of opposing counsel.”

Note, the citation for this case is Carehouse Convalescent Hospital v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1558.