Judge Audra Mori, Case 19STCV32652 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff, Uri Perez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant, George Anderson (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. On June 10, 2020, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to add Defendant Karo Vartanian.

At this time, both Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and order Plaintiff to produce the documents requested in the Notice of Deposition. Any opposition to this motion was due by March 1, 2023. As of March 8, 2023, no opposition has been filed.

Defendants assert that they have attempted to take Plaintiff’s deposition nine times over the course of twenty-one months.

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 a valid objection was served under §2025.410.

Here, Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s deposition was first noticed by prior counsel for April 6, 2021, then continued twice, with Plaintiff failing to appear on August 18, 2021. (Samsonova Decl. ¶ 4.) The Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel deposition on October 21, 2021. (10/21/21 Minute Order.) The deposition was rescheduled for April 7, 2022, but because Plaintiff was under the influence of medication and not feeling well, the parties agreed to continue the deposition; thus Plaintiff has been aware of the need for his deposition for some time. (Samsonova Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for November 23, 2022, but the day before the deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel asked her to postpone the deposition to December 20, 2022. (Samsonova Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 5, 6.) The day before this hearing, Plaintiff again asked the deposition to be continued to January 19, 2023. (Samsonova Decl. Ex. 7.) Again, on the evening of January 18, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel asked to reschedule the deposition. (Samsonova Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 8, 9.) Defendants informed Plaintiff that if they agreed to produce Plaintiff on January 31, 2023 and confirmed the date by January 27, 2023, Defendants would not file a motion to compel. (Samsonova Decl. Ex. 10.)

However, Defendants state that Plaintiff did not confirm the deposition as requested, instead attempting to agree to the deposition 24 hours before the deposition date suggested. Defendants argue that they were forced to file this motion because they could not rely on Plaintiff’s word and risk Plaintiff failing to appear. (Samsonova Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendants state that they cannot ensure Plaintiff’s appearance and Defendant’s readiness for trial without a court order.

Plaintiff does not oppose this motion or provide evidence to contradict that provided by Defendants. The Court grants the motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition as there were multiple properly noticed depositions without valid objections, and Plaintiff did not appear in response to the noticed depositions. Plaintiff Uri Perez 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).

Although Defendants also request production of documents described in the deposition notice, Defendants do not put forward any declaration containing specific facts justifying the inspection of the documents described in the notice. (See CCP § 2025.450(b)(1).) Thus, the Court denies Defendants request to compel document production.

CCP § 2025.450(g)(1) requires the Court to impose sanctions unless it finds the deponent acted with substantial justification or there are circumstances that render imposition of sanctions unjust. Defendant requests sanctions of $3,736.65. Because the motion is unopposed and no reply was necessary, the request is unreasonable. The court awards two hours for preparing the motion and one hour for appearing at the hearing all at the requested rate of $245 per hour, for a total attorney’s fees award of $735. Further, Defendant is awarded the $61.65 motion filing fee as costs.

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally. They are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through Defendant’s attorney of record, in the total amount of $796.65, within twenty days.

· 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.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court