Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV11356, Date: 2024-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11356    Hearing Date: August 12, 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 City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Christina Almeida’s (“Plaintiff”) deposition. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. Plaintiff opposes. No reply 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 Vanessa Ticas, Defendant’s counsel, asserts the parties have met and conferred via email regarding each of the scheduled depositions. (Ticas Decl. ¶ 5.)

DISCUSSION

On August 25, 2022, Defendant served a deposition notice on Plaintiff, set for November 16, 2022. (Ticas Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A.) The deposition was taken off calendar because Plaintiff could not be located. (Id.) Since then, Defendant has noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for July 12, 2023, March 20, 2024, April 9, 2024, and May 24, 2024. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff has failed to appear for any deposition.

In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel confirms Plaintiff has generally been non-responsive. However, on July 29, 2024, Plaintiff contacted her counsel and indicated she was in the hospital but did not divulge specifics.

Plaintiff’s counsel provides no information regarding efforts to contact Plaintiff during the pendency of this lawsuit, or information on her purported hospitalization. Because it does not appear that Plaintiff timely served objections to the depositions and has generally failed to appear for noticed depositions for over a year and a half, the motion to compel is granted.

Defendant requests $1,150 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel representing a $143.75 hourly rate. (Ticas Decl. ¶ 7.) The Court finds that sanctions are warranted given that Plaintiff’s counsel has not discussed efforts to contact Plaintiff throughout this case and has not provided enough information to justify Plaintiff’s lack of participation. However, the Court finds the amount requested is excessive given the type of motion and the fact no reply was filed. Therefore, the Court grants monetary sanctions in the amount of $287.50 (two hours of attorney time).   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff Christina Almeida shall appear for a remote deposition on August 22, 2024 at 10:30 a.m., or on a different date/time stipulated by the parties.

The Court further grants Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $287.50 against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, jointly and severally. Said monetary sanctions shall be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of this order.

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