Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV02753, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV02753    Hearing Date: August 30, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Ricardo Hernandez and Marlon Ernesto Vasquez Burgos (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move to compel Nathaniel Gutierrez’s (“Defendant”) deposition.  Trial in this action is currently set for September 20, 2022.  Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

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.

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.”  (CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).) 

Here, Plaintiffs state they noticed Defendant’s deposition for February 17, 2022, but after meeting and conferring with Defendant’s counsel, Plaintiffs served an amended notice setting Defendant’s deposition for March 8, 2022.  Plaintiffs assert that Defendant did not appear, so Plaintiffs took a certificate of non-appearance.  Plaintiffs provide that to date, Defendant has not appeared for his deposition.  However, while Plaintiffs state that they met and conferred with Defendant when rescheduling Defendant’s deposition for March 8, 2022, Plaintiffs do not otherwise provide that they attempted to meet and confer to resolve the issues presented in this motion, or that Plaintiffs contacted Defendant to inquire about his nonappearance.  This is insufficient to comply with CCP § 2025.450(b)(2). 

Therefore, the motion is tentatively denied. 

            However, if at the hearing on this matter Plaintiffs show they can serve and file a sufficient declaration, the Court will consider continuing the matter.  

Plaintiffs are 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 30^th day of August 2022