Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV13302, Date: 2024-05-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13302    Hearing Date: May 20, 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

On April 7, 2021, Plaintiff Victoria Tap (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against JP Morgan Chase & Co., CBRE, Inc., and Does 1 to 100 alleging injuries due to a malfunctioned door.

On December 21, 2023, Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (“Defendant”) served an amended notice of deposition on Plaintiff, set for January 10, 2024. On the day of the deposition, Plaintiff appeared but did not produce the documents requested in the notice.

Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff to produce said documents. No opposition has been filed.  Defendant also separately moves to continue trial.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480,

“(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.

(b) This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”

“If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(i).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(j).)

MEET AND CONFER

The Declaration of Gabriela M. Bonato shows states that Defendant’s counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel on February 22, 2024 to respond to the production request within 12 days or Defendant would file the instant motion. (Bonato Decl. ¶ 3.) It does not appear Plaintiff responded. Therefore, it appears Defendant made a reasonable attempt to resolve the issue.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, this motion is timely since the deposition took place on January 10, 2024, and Plaintiff filed this motion on March 8, 2024. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(b).)

Here, Plaintiff appeared for her deposition on January 10, 2024, but failed to produce any of the documents requested in the deposition notice, arguing all documents had been produced, and that documents concerning subsequent treatments were unavailable at the time. (Bonato Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel represented he would produce responsive documents when they came into his possession. (Ibid.) Defendant brought this motion after waiting 1.5 months without a response to the request.

            The subject deposition notice requests production of updated medical records, witness statements, photographs, and documents related to Plaintiff’s lost wages claim, since April 14, 2023 to the present. (Id., Exh. A.) The requests appear discoverable. Though Defendant asserts Plaintiff was not in possession of these updated records, Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, and fails to set forth a reason to deny. Therefore, since Plaintiff has not produced the documents, but attended the deposition, the motion to compel is granted.

 Defendant requests $786.41 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, representing a $205 hourly rate and the $61.65 filing fee. The Court finds sanctions are warranted but the amount is excessive given there was no opposition. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $471.65 (2 hours of attorney time plus the filing fee).  

The separately filed motion to continue trial is denied as moot given the stipulation granted on April 17, 2024.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to Compel Responses to First Amended Notice of Taking Deposition and Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide responses within 10 days.

The Court further grants Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $471.65. Said monetary sanctions shall be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days.

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is denied as moot.

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