Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV37849, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37849    Hearing Date: March 5, 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 Mi Sun Chung (“Defendant”) now moves to compel the depositions of Plaintiffs Kwan Jung Yoon and Hae Sook Yoon (“Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs oppose. Defendant replies.

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 Jonathan Ebneyamin shows that Defendant’s counsel was communicating with Plaintiffs’ counsel to schedule the depositions, and to provide alternative dates after Plaintiffs’ cancellations. (See Ebneyamin Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. E.) Therefore, the meet and confer requirement has been met.

DISCUSSION

Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs’ depositions have been noticed three times, set for November 10, 2023, December 11, 2023, and January 3, 2024. (Ebneyamin Decl. ¶ 4–9). Each time, Plaintiffs canceled the deposition stating they were not available, despite previously proposing the December 11, 2023 date. (Id. ¶ 5.) As of the filing of this motion, Plaintiffs have not offered alternative dates.  

In opposition, Plaintiffs asserts that Kwan Yoon’s deposition took place on February 16, 2024. (Gao Decl. ¶ 12.) The parties did not have time to complete Hae Sook Yoon’s deposition on February 16, 2024 and scheduled her deposition for February 28, 2024. (Id. ¶ 14–16.)

The Court finds that the motions to compel are moot because one deposition has already completed and the other was scheduled to be completed prior to the hearing on this motion. Moreover, monetary sanctions are not warranted because valid reasons were given sufficiently in advance of the depositions for the nonappearances.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant Mi Sun Chung’s motions to compel Plaintiffs’ depositions are DENIED as moot.  

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