Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV22267, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22267    Hearing Date: January 10, 2024    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 or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  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

Defendant Estate of Elizabeth Evans (Defendant) moves to compel Plaintiff Antoinette Smith’s (Plaintiff) deposition. Defendant requests monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . , without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

“A motion under subdivision (a) [above] shall comply with both of the following:

1. The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

2. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b).)

If a motion is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of that party unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450 (g).)

MEET AND CONFER

The Declaration of Ani Garigyan states that she sent Plaintiff’s counsel three emails in an attempt to reschedule the deposition. However, Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond. (Garibyan Decl. ¶ 11–12.) Therefore, the meet and confer requirement has been satisfied.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues it has noticed Plaintiff’s deposition three times. Plaintiff objected due to unavailability for the first two notices. On May 19, 2023, Defendant served its Third Notice of Deposition set for July 20, 2023. Defendant asserts this date was chosen by Plaintiff. (Garibyan Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. D.) However, on July 18, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that the deposition needed to be rescheduled. Defendant refused to reschedule and obtained a certificate of nonappearance. (Id. ¶ 9–10, Exh. E.) Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not offered any new dates for a deposition. (Id. ¶ 12.) Therefore, because Plaintiff did not timely serve an objection to the July 20, 2023 deposition, the motion to compel is granted.

Defendant also seeks $911.65 in monetary sanctions representing a $250 hourly rate and two hours to prepare this motion, $350 for the Court Reporter Nonappearance fee, and the $61.65 filing fee. The Court grants Defendant’s request for sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant Estate of Elizabeth Evans’ motion to compel Plaintiff Antoinette Smith’s deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall appear for deposition within 10 days.

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay $911.65 in monetary sanctions to counsel for Defendant within 30 days.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.