Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV34815, Date: 2023-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34815    Hearing Date: March 13, 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 September 21, 2021, Plaintiff Alejandro Choy (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint against Defendant Southern California Gas Company and Does 1 to 50 for injuries sustained after allegedly falling through a manhole.  On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to allege Southern California Edison Company as Doe 1.   

On October 13, 2023, Defendant served a deposition notice on Plaintiff, requesting a deposition and request for production on October 24, 2023. (Yegazarian Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. D.) Plaintiff did not file any objections and appeared for the deposition without producing said documents. (Ibid.)

Defendant now moves to compel the production of the documents requested in the deposition notice. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

As an initial matter, Defendant brings this motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010 et seq. However, since the request for documents was contained in a deposition notice, the proper basis for the motion is through Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480.

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

After the October 24, 2023 deposition, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter addressing the missing documents from the deposition. (Yegazarian Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. E.) Plaintiff did not respond. Therefore, Defendant made a good faith effort to meet and confer. 

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, this motion is timely since the deposition took place on October 24, 2023, and Defendant filed this motion on November 14, 2023. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(b).)

Here, Plaintiff appeared for his deposition on October 24, 2023, but failed to produce any of the documents requested in the deposition notice. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff did not read the contents of the notice and did not serve objections. (Id. ¶ 8; Motion, 6.)

            The subject deposition notice requests production of safety materials from Sparkletts, worker’s compensation records, medical records, and writings pertaining to the incident. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, and there is no indication that he asserted timely objections. Accordingly, the motion to compel is granted.

            Defendant also seeks $675 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, representing work done by two attorneys ($250 hourly rate for 1.5 hours and a $200 hourly rate for 1.5 hours). The Court finds sanctions are warranted but the amount requested in excessive. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $400 (two hours of work at the $200 hourly rate).[1]

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to Compel Documents in Plaintiff’s First Amended Deposition Notice is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide responses to the production requests within 30 days.   

            The Court further grants Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $400 against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, jointly and severally. Said monetary sanctions are to 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.