Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV03243, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03243    Hearing Date: September 20, 2023    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 January 26, 2022, Plaintiff Kristina Sanoyan (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Homegoods, Inc., The TJX Companies, Inc. and Does 1 to 100 for injuries sustained in a store aisle.

Defendant Homegoods, Inc. (Defendant) now moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and seeks monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A party desiring to take an oral deposition shall give a notice in writing which states the specification of reasonably particularly of any materials to be produced by the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.220, subd. (a)(4).) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) The party served with a deposition notice waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).)  

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action … without having served a valid objection … 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 brought to compel a deposition “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition … by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)  

On motion of any other party who, in person or by attorney, attended at the time and place specified in the deposition notice in the expectation that the deponent's testimony would be taken, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of that party and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court 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., § 2025.450.) 

If a motion to compel deposition is granted, sanctions are mandatory in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court 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., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) 

DISCUSSION

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s deposition has now been completed. Accordingly, the motion to compel is denied as moot.

Defendant also seeks $1,835.45 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or her counsel of record.  This is calculated with an hourly rate of $170.00 per hour for 6.5 hours and $730.45 in fees for a Court Reporter on July 19, 2023. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not acted with substantial justification and therefore awards monetary sanctions. However, the Court finds the amount requested to be excessive in light of the nature of the motion and that no opposition was filed. Accordingly, the Court orders sanctions in the amount of $1,070.45 (2 hours of attorney time plus the court reporter’s fees.)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is denied as moot.

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through their counsel of record, in the amount of $1,070.45 within twenty days.  

Defendant shall give notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.