Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV46421, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46421    Hearing Date: April 15, 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 December 20, 2021, Plaintiffs David L. Yen and Rosa Yen filed a complaint against Defendants V&V Hauling, Inc., Ernesto Ramos Esparza, Maria Ramirez Villegas, Josue J. Valerio, and Does 1 to 50 for injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident. 

On February 16, 2024, Plaintiff David L. Yen (“Plaintiff”) served a second amended deposition notice on Defendant Josue J. Valerio (“Defendant”), requesting a deposition and request for production on February 29, 2024. (Kasparian Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Defendant did not file any objections and appeared for the deposition without producing said documents. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff now moves to compel the production of the documents requested in the deposition notice. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff appears to bring this motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450. (See Motion, 5.) However, since the request for documents was contained in a deposition notice, Defendant appeared for the deposition, and Plaintiff only seeks to compel production (and not Defendant’s attendance), 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

The Declaration of Aghavni Kasparian does not set forth facts that a meet and confer took place prior to filing this motion. Therefore, the meet and confer requirement has not been met.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, this motion is timely since the deposition took place on February 29, 2024, and Plaintiff filed this motion on March 6, 2024. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(b).)

Here, Defendant appeared for his deposition on February 29, 2024, but failed to produce any of the documents requested in the deposition notice, arguing no one told him bring anything. (Kasparian Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant did not serve objections. (Ibid.)

            The subject deposition notice requests production of documents relating to V&V Hauling, Inc.’s payment of Defendant’s personal expenses, debts, communications regarding the subject incident, documents related to registration, insurance policies, and documents that support Defendant’s affirmative defenses. The requests appear discoverable.

            In opposition, Defendant argues the requests were overly burdensome. However, it does not appear that Defendant served objections or moved for a protective order. Therefore, the motion to compel is granted. However, because Plaintiff failed to properly meet and confer, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to Compel Documents in the Second Amended Deposition Notice is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide responses within 20 days.

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