Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV02851, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV02851    Hearing Date: February 27, 2025    Dept: F51

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Motion filed: 11/4/24                                                                                  JURY TRIAL: 8/25/25

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Robles Ramiro Canal (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

NOTICE: ok¿¿ 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order to compel nonparty deponent Luigi P. Juncaj, PA to comply with Defendant’s 7/24/24 deposition subpoena within 15 days. Defendant also seeks $720.00 in monetary sanctions against Mr. Juncaj.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. The Court orders Mr. Juncaj to appear for his deposition, and to produce the documents specified in the deposition subpoena within 30 days. The Court imposes $250.00 in monetary sanctions against Mr. Juncaj.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action where Plaintiff alleges that on 9/6/21, Defendant was negligently operating a motor vehicle such that “Defendant’s vehicle collided with a vehicle operated by T Sano Kwong. Defendant then careened out of control [and] struck the vehicle occupied by Plaintiff.” (Compl. p. 5.)

On 9/25/23, Plaintiff filed her complaint, alleging the following causes of action against Defendant: (1) General Negligence; and (2) Motor Vehicle Negligence. On 1/3/24, Defendant filed his answer.

On 11/4/24, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of nonparty deponent Luigi P. Juncaj, PA. No opposition has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

A party may, upon proper written notice, obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any natural person, organization, partnership, association, or governmental agency. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.010, 2025.220.) When a nonparty is served with a deposition subpoena but fails to attend the deposition or refuses to be sworn as a witness, the party that served the subpoena may move for an order directing compliance with the subpoena and imposing other terms or conditions as the judge considers appropriate. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff produced discovery that shows that she was treated by Mr. Juncaj “at Kaiser Permanente for her injuries from the accident.” (Decl. of David J. Mendoza, ¶ 3, citing Ex. A to Mendoza Decl.) On 7/24/24, Defendant noticed the deposition of Mr. Juncaj, with the papers personally served on Mr. Juncaj on 8/5/24. (Id. at ¶¶ 4–5.) Despite Defendant’s counsel’s attempts to confirm the deposition with Mr. Juncaj and Kaiser Permanente, no responses were provided and Mr. Juncaj failed to appear on the deposition date. (Id. at ¶¶ 6–10.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to grant the unopposed motion compel Mr. Juncaj’s compliance with Defendant’s deposition subpoena.

“In making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendant argues that “there is no substantial justification for failing to comply with the subpoena. As explained above, defense counsel reached out multiple times. However, Mr. Juncaj still failed to appear. These actions prejudiced Defendant by forcing him to file a motion to compel. As a result of the above, Defendant has incurred, or reasonably expects to incur, $720.00 in reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” (Def.’s Mot. 5:10–14.)

In granting the instant unopposed motion, the Court grants Defendant $250.00 in monetary sanctions against Mr. Juncaj.

ANALYSIS

The unopposed motion is granted. The Court orders Mr. Juncaj to appear for his deposition, and to produce the documents specified in the deposition subpoena within 30 days. The Court imposes $250.00 in monetary sanctions against Mr. Juncaj.