Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV17794, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV17794    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Kristie Siegel (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Belmont Brewing Co. Inc.(“Defendant”) for damages relating to a trip and fall on Defendant’s property. 

Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition.  Defendant asserts it has noticed Plaintiff’s deposition multiple times.  Most recently, Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for February 25, 2022.  However, Plaintiff failed to appear for her deposition, and an affidavit of non-appearance was taken.  (Mot. Exh. B.) 

CCP § 2025.450(a) provides, “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, 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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing 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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”  CCP § 2025.450 requires the Court to compel the deposition unless it finds Defendant served a valid objection under §2025.410.

A motion to compel deposition “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.”

Here, Defendant asserts that it has attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff on numerous occasions, including after Plaintiff failed to appear for the February 25, 2022 deposition, but Plaintiff has failed to reply in any manner to Defendant’s attempts.[1]  (Amended Supp. Dilts Decl. ¶¶ 9-12.)  Any opposition to the motion was due by August 1, 2022.  To date, no opposition has been filed. 

The motion to compel is unopposed and granted.  (CCP § 2025.450(a).)  Plaintiff Kristie Siegel is ordered to appear for deposition at a date, time, and location to be noticed by Defendant.  Defendant must give at least ten days’ notice of the deposition (notice extended per Code if by other than personal service). 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 12^th day of August 2022