Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 19STCV05276, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV05276    Hearing Date: August 9, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

This case stems from allegations that Vincent Dillard (“Plaintiff”) sustained injury to his person and property on February 1, 2018 when he drove his vehicle over potholes in the City of Compton. (Complaint, ¶ GN-1.) Plaintiff filed his Complaint on February 13, 2019 against several defendants alleging one cause of action for general negligence. Defendant County of Los Angeles filed the instant Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff Vincent Dillard and Request Sanctions Against Plaintiff and Counsel in the Amount of $2,600.00 (“Motion”) on February 6, 2023. No opposition nor reply briefs have been filed.    

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

A motion lies to compel deposition attendance and document production, after service of a deposition notice, where a deponent fails to appear at, or proceed with, a deposition, without having served a valid objection. (CCP §2025.450(a).) No meet and confer is required to compel initial deposition attendance, but instead there must be a declaration showing that moving party inquired about the nonappearance. (CCP §2025.450(b)(2).)  

“Implicit in the requirement that counsel contact the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance is a requirement that counsel listen to the reasons offered and make a good faith attempt to resolve the issue,” including by rescheduling. (Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Serv. (2001) 86 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1124. See also L.A.S.C.L.R. 3.26, Appendix 3.A(e) (reasonable consideration should be given to accommodating schedules in setting depositions).)

Analysis

Here, Defendant offers the Declaration of Allen L. Thomas (“Thomas Dec.”) which states that three deposition notices were served on Plaintiff. (Thomas Dec., 10:5-10.) The first could not go forward because Plaintiff’s medical records were still being obtained. (Id.) The second and third times the deposition was noticed, Plaintiff’s attorney claimed excuses for the attorney’s inability to proceed with Plaintiff’s deposition. (Id.) The second deposition did not proceed because Plaintiff’s attorney was scheduled for surgery, and the third was delayed because Plaintiff’s attorney had to appear at a separate trial. (Thomas Dec., 11:1-3.)

            No supplemental declaration by counsel has been filed regarding efforts to meet and confer since the motion was filed in February.  However, the Court notes that no opposition brief to this motion has been filed.  Given the age of the case, the length of time that has passed since Plaintiff’s deposition was first noticed, and the reserved hearing date for a motion for summary judgment, the Court will grant the motion in order to have discovery completed in an efficient manner.

            Defendant requests sanctions in connection with the motion.  The request for sanctions is premature, because Plaintiff has not failed to appear for deposition.  Accordingly, the request is denied.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendant County of Los Angeles’ Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff Vincent Dillard is GRANTED.

Plaintiff must appear for his deposition on August 29, 2023.  The parties are to meet and confer to avoid any further delay.

Defendant shall give notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.