Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV36211, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36211    Hearing Date: November 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

            Defendant Luke Mitchell Crawford (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Xochitl Alvarez Espindola’s (“Plaintiff”) deposition. Defendant does not seek 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).)

DISCUSSION

On August 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney form stating she was now representing herself.

On September 20, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff with a notice of deposition for October 7, 2024, via mail. (Shafizadeh Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Plaintiff did not serve an objection and did not appear for the deposition. A certificate of non-appearance was obtained. (Id., Exh. C.)

On October 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed and signed a “Consent to Electronic Service.” Plaintiff has received electronic notice of this motion and has not filed an opposition. Therefore, because Plaintiff failed to timely object to the October 7, 2024 deposition, and failed to appear, the motion to compel is granted. The Court declines to award monetary sanctions since none are sought.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff Xochitl Alvarez Espindola shall appear within 30 days’ notice of this order for a deposition.

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