Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV24666, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24666    Hearing Date: April 24, 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 Diego Ruiz (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Christina Shores (“Plaintiff”) deposition. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. 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 Gabriella Guthner shows that Defendant’s counsel has requested alternative dates from Plaintiff’s counsel throughout the process of scheduling Plaintiff’s deposition, but none have been provided. (Guthner Decl. ¶ 7, 9.) Therefore, the meet and confer requirement has been met.

DISCUSSION

On February 2, 2023, Defendant first noticed Plaintiff’s deposition set for May 2, 2023. (Guthner Decl. ¶ 1, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff asserted the date was unilaterally set. Defendant requested alternative dates in June 2023, but Plaintiff did not provide any. (Id. ¶ 2.) On September 20, 2023, Defendant served an amended notice for Plaintiff’s deposition, set for October 23, 2023. (Id. ¶ 3, Exh. 3.) Plaintiff did not respond to attempts to confirm the deposition, and it was taken off calendar. (Id. ¶ 4.) Defendant served a second amended notice for Plaintiff’s deposition, set for November 28, 2023. No formal objection was served, and Plaintiff failed to appear. Defendant obtained a certificate on non-appearance. Plaintiff also did not appear at a subsequent noticed deposition on March 4, 2024. (Id. ¶ 11, Exh. 10.)

Therefore, because it does not appear that Plaintiff timely objected to the March 4, 2024 deposition, and has not provided alternative dates for the previous depositions, the motion to compel is granted.

Defendant requests $1,000 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, representing a $200 hourly rate. The Court finds that sanctions are warranted but the amount requested is excessive given the type of motion and the fact no opposition was filed. Therefore, the Court grants monetary sanctions in the amount of $600 (3 hours of attorney time).  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff Christina Shores shall appear on May 8, 2024 at 2:00 p.m., or on a date mutually agreeable to the parties within 30 days of this order, for a deposition.

The Court further grants Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $600.00 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.