Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV06490, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06490    Hearing Date: May 31, 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 Union 51 Venture LLC (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Maria Isabel Mendoza Gonzalez’s (“Plaintiff”) deposition. 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 Vanessa Y. Cavanna does not set forth facts that Defendant’s counsel inquired about Plaintiff’s non-appearance on February 6, 2024. Therefore, the meet and confer requirement has not been met.

DISCUSSION

On August 24, 2023, Defendant served the first notice of deposition on Plaintiff, setting a deposition for October 4, 2023. (Cavanna Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A.) On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel stated in an email she was objecting and would provide Plaintiff’s availability. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. C.) On December 29, 2023, having received no availabilities, Defendant served a second deposition notice, set for February 6, 2024. (Id. ¶ 7, Exh. D.) On the date of the deposition, Plaintiff did not appear, and an affidavit of non-appearance was obtained. (Id. ¶ 9, Exh. F.)

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion explaining the non-appearance.

Therefore, because it appears that Plaintiff failed to provide alternative dates for a deposition, or timely object to the February 6, 2024 deposition, the motion to compel is granted.

Defendant requests $1,010 in monetary sanctions representing a $175 hourly rate, the $60 filing fee, and the court reporter’s no-show fee of $250. (Exh. G.) The Court finds that sanctions for the no-show fee are warranted, but not for reasonable attorney fees since Defendant failed to meet and confer. Therefore, the Court grants monetary sanctions in the amount of $250 for the court reporter fee.   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff Maria Isabel Mendoza Gonzalez shall appear on June 20, 2024, or within 10 days’ notice of this order on a mutually convenient date and time, for a remote deposition.

The Court further grants Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $250 against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, jointly and severally. Said monetary sanctions shall be paid to counsel for Defendant within 20 days of this order.

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