Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV42377, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42377    Hearing Date: February 14, 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 David Lievanos (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Miguel Salinas’s (“Plaintiff”) deposition. 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 Mitchell Fenton does not state that counsel attempted to contact Plaintiff regarding the non-appearance. Therefore, the meet and confer requirement has not been met.

DISCUSSION

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident. On June 26, 2023, Defendant served a notice of taking Plaintiff’s deposition on his then-counsel. (Fenton Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Deposition was set for August 3, 2023. On July 18, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s then-counsel’s motion to be relieved. That same day, former counsel filed a proof of service of the order to relieve as counsel and the Notice of Deposition, to Plaintiff via mail. On August 3, 2023, Plaintiff failed to appear for the deposition via video conference, and Defendant obtained a Certificate of Non-Appearance. (Id. ¶ 7, Exh. C.) 

Notice of this motion was served via mail on Plaintiff at the address listed in the Order to relieve as counsel. Therefore, seeing no opposition and because Plaintiff failed to object or appear for the deposition, the motion to compel is granted. The Court declines to award monetary sanctions because Defendant did not meet and confer prior to bringing this motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff Miguel Salinas shall appear within 15 days’ notice of this order for a remote deposition.

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