Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV13689, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13689    Hearing Date: October 24, 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 Fernando Lopez Rojas (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiffs Jocelyn Montoya and Idalia Hernandez’s (“Plaintiffs”) depositions. 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 Delmas A. Woods, Defendant’s counsel, contains sufficient facts showing that counsel attempted to schedule Plaintiffs’ depositions in good faith. Therefore, the meet and confer requirement is met.  

DISCUSSION

Defendant sets forth the discovery history in this case, showing that Defendant has attempted to set Plaintiffs’ depositions multiple times since September 2023. (Woods Decl. ¶ 6.) Because Plaintiffs did not respond to requests for discovery, the depositions were taken off-calendar. Once Plaintiffs provided discovery, on May 7, 2024, Defendant noticed Plaintiffs’ depositions for July 10, 2024. (Id. ¶ 10.) After Plaintiffs failed to confirm the day before, Defendant took the depositions off-calendar. (Id. ¶ 11.) Afterward, Defendant asked Plaintiffs for alternative dates but received no response. Defendant then noticed the depositions for August 8, 2024. On August 7, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated the depositions needed to be rescheduled. On September 12, 2024, Defendant asked to reset the depositions, but received no response.

Therefore, because it does not appear that Plaintiffs have timely objected to any of the depositions, and have failed to proceed with them, the motions to compel are granted.

Defendant requests $1,870 in monetary sanctions against each Plaintiff and counsel of record, representing a $190 hourly rate and the $65 filing fee. (Woods Decl. ¶ 22.) The Court finds that sanctions are warranted but the amount requested is excessive given the type of motion, lack of opposition, and the fact counsel can appear at the hearing remotely. Therefore, the Court grants monetary sanctions in the amount of $445 (2 hours of attorney time plus the filing fee), against each Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiffs’ depositions are GRANTED. Plaintiff Jocelyn Montoya shall appear for deposition within 10 days. Plaintiff Idalia Hernandez shall appear for deposition within 20 days.

The Court further grants Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $445 against Plaintiff Jocelyn Montoya and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, and for $445 against Plaintiff Idalia Hernandez 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.