Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV01447, Date: 2024-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV01447    Hearing Date: August 9, 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 Seyed Abbas Hojati (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Danielle Coleman’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 Solair T. Kharadjian, Defendant’s counsel states the following: “Counsel for Hojati has met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel after the noticed deposition to avoid court intervention and in an attempt to resolve these issues informally.” (Kharadjian Decl. ¶ 8.) Additionally, it appears counsel for Defendant has spoken with Plaintiff’s counsel to schedule another deposition. Therefore, the meet and confer requirement appears to have been met.

DISCUSSION

On April 29, 2024, Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for May 20, 2024. (Kharadjian Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. B.) Plaintiff was unresponsive to Defendant’s efforts to confirm the deposition. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. C.) However, on May 17, 2024, Plaintiff informed Defendant that the date did not work. It appears Plaintiff did not serve an objection. As a result, Plaintiff did not appear at the deposition and Defendant obtained a Certificate of Non-Appearance. (Id., Exh. D.)

Defendant asserts that the parties later agreed on a June 21, 2024 deposition; if that deposition occurred, Defendant would withdraw the instant motion. (Kharadjian Decl. ¶ 9-11.)

Because Plaintiff did not serve an objection under Section 2025.410 to the May 20, 2024 deposition and did not follow up regarding efforts to reschedule, the motion to compel is granted.

Because Defendant did not request monetary sanctions in the Notice of Motion, the Court declines to award sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

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

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 Seyed Abbas Hojati (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Dionne Coleman’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 Solair T. Kharadjian, Defendant’s counsel states the following: “Counsel for Hojati has met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel after the noticed deposition to avoid court intervention and in an attempt to resolve these issues informally. Based on information and belief, my supervising partner Ava Vahdat, spoke with Plaintiff’s counsel Hess Panah, telephonically on June 5, 2024. Ms. Vahdat requested deposition availability from Plaintiff’s counsel. However, to date, no such availability was provided, thereby necessitating this motion.” (Kharadjian Decl. ¶ 8-9.) Therefore, the meet and confer requirement appears to have been met.

DISCUSSION

On April 29, 2024, Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for May 21, 2024. (Kharadjian Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. B.) Plaintiff was unresponsive to Defendant’s efforts to confirm the deposition. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. C.) However, on May 17, 2024, Plaintiff informed Defendant that the date did not work. (Id.) It appears Plaintiff did not serve an objection. As a result, Plaintiff did not appear at the deposition and Defendant obtained a Certificate of Non-Appearance. (Id., Exh. D.)

Defendant asserts that counsel for Plaintiff has not provided available dates for a future deposition.

Because Plaintiff did not serve an objection under Section 2025.410 to the May 20, 2024 deposition and did not follow up regarding efforts to reschedule, the motion to compel is granted.

Because Defendant did not request monetary sanctions in the Notice of Motion, the Court declines to award sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

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