Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV07725, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07725    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

Defendants Chia Ching Chiang and Brent Sokol (Defendants) move to compel Plaintiff Ron York’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 Jill Kramer shows she has attempted to schedule Plaintiff’s deposition with counsel multiple times. Therefore, the meet and confer requirement has been satisfied.

DISCUSSION

Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for November 13, 2023, as agreed by Plaintiff. (Kramer Decl. ¶ 2–3.) The date was canceled by Plaintiff’s counsel on November 9, 2023 due to unavailability. Defendants requested alternative dates from Plaintiff’s newly associated counsel, but received none. Defendants re-noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for November 28, 2023. (Id. ¶ 7, Exh. F.) Plaintiff’s counsel indicated she was unavailable on that date but did not serve a formal objection. (Id. ¶ 7–9.) Therefore, because Plaintiff did not serve a timely objection, and does not oppose, the motion to compel is granted.

The discovery cut off in this case is January 15, 2023, and thus, Defendants seek a Court order compelling Plaintiff’s deposition within five days of this hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.270(d) [On motion or ex parte application of any party or deponent, for good cause shown, the court may shorten or extend the time for scheduling a deposition.”].)

Defendants do not seek monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff Ron York’s deposition is GRANTED.  

Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition within five days of notice of this ruling.

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