Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV24684, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24684    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 Jilbert Gharghani (Doe 1) (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Sonia Hernandez Sosa’s (“Plaintiff”) deposition.[1] 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 William F. Salle, Defendant’s counsel shows that Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff to schedule this deposition following the third and final objection. Therefore, Defendant has made a good faith effort to resolve the issue.  

DISCUSSION

On April 9, 2024, Defendant served his first deposition notice for Plaintiff, set for April 30, 2024. (Salle Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) On April 24, 2024, Plaintiff served an objection based on unavailability. Defendant requested alternative dates, but none were provided; Plaintiff failed to meet and confer. As a result, on May 2, 2024, Defendant served a second deposition notice for May 24, 2024. (Id. ¶ 8, Exh. G.) On May 21, 2024, Plaintiff served an objection stating it was unilaterally noticed and that she was attempting to confirm that a claim under her uninsured motorist coverage would be accepted by her carrier, making her deposition unnecessary. (Id. ¶ 10.) Defendant heard nothing from Plaintiff about the status of her claim, and so noticed her deposition on October 4, 2024, for October 21, 2024. On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff served an objection, again based on the unilaterally set date.

Plaintiff has not opposed this motion. Moreover, Plaintiff has undermined the merit of the objection of a unilaterally set date by not working to set an alternative date and ignoring Defendant’s attempts to meet and confer. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to proceed with the deposition and the motion to compel is granted.

Defendant requests $1,560 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel, representing a $500 hourly rate and the $60 filing fee. The Court finds that sanctions are warranted but the amount requested is excessive given the type of motion, lack of opposition, and fact Defendant can appear at the hearing remotely. Therefore, the Court grants monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,060 (2 hours of attorney time, plus the filing fee).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff Sonia Hernandez Sosa shall appear within 10 days’ notice of this order for a deposition.

The Court further grants Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,060.00 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.