Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV29093, Date: 2024-05-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV29093 Hearing Date: May 6, 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
|
DEPT: |
32 |
|
HEARING DATE: |
May
6, 2024 |
|
CASE NUMBER: |
22STCV29093 |
|
MOTIONS: |
Motion
to Compel Defendant’s Deposition |
|
Plaintiff Isaac Yarmak |
|
|
OPPOSING PARTY: |
None |
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
Isaac Yarmak (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Kenny Castaneda’s (“Defendant”)
deposition. Plaintiff 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 Eran Ladstein indicates Plaintiff has communicated
with Defendant’s counsel, requesting alternative dates. (Ladstein Decl. ¶ 5.) Therefore,
the meet and confer requirement has been satisfied.
DISCUSSION
Here, Plaintiff asserts he has noticed Defendant’s deposition for
three separate dates: October 11, 2023, January 8, 2024, and January 23, 2024.
(Lagstein Decl. ¶¶ 2–4, Exh. 1–3.) The last two dates were confirmed by
Defendant in advance. However, on each of these dates, Defendant failed to
appear. Since it appears no objections were served, and Defendant did not
appear, the motion to compel is granted.
Plaintiff seeks $8,239.05 in monetary sanctions against Defendant,
based on a $1,000 hourly rate, the $61.65 filing fee, and $4,177.40 for the deposition
fees. The Court finds sanctions are warranted but the amount requested is
excessive in light of the nature of the motion, and the fact Plaintiff’s
counsel does not provide support for his hourly rate. Accordingly, the Court
awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,989.05 (1.5 hours of attorney
time at a $500 hourly rate, the filing fee, and deposition fees).
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
motion to compel Defendant’s deposition is GRANTED. Defendant Kenny Castaneda
shall appear for deposition within 15 days.
Defendant Kenny Castaneda shall pay monetary sanctions in the reduced amount
of $4,989.05 to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days.
Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof
of service of such.