Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 22STCV12815, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12815    Hearing Date: February 2, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Barry Uche Nnanna (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ricky Atkinson and Reeve Trucking Company, Inc. (“collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

At this time, Defendants move for an order imposing monetary sanctions on Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s failure to appear for his deposition on June 23, 2022.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendants filed a reply. 

Defendants contend Plaintiff's deposition was properly noticed for June 23, 2022, and that defense and Plaintiff’s counsel, along with a court reporter and videographer, appeared for the deposition, but Plaintiff failed to appear.  Defendants assert they have since received two invoices for the deposition totaling $1,205.00, and Defendants attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff about covering the fees but received no response.  Defendants argue they are entitled to sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to appear and for bringing this motion.

In opposition, Plaintiff states that he appeared for the June 23, 2022 deposition at 2:00 p.m. instead of 10:00 a.m. because of a timing mix up.  Plaintiff asserts that he has now appeared for two sessions for his deposition, and that Plaintiff did not intend to obstruct discovery. 

In reply, Defendants aver that Plaintiff’s alleged error was not harmless and resulted in a bill of $1,250.  Defendants contend they are not at fault for the bill, and that only Plaintiff’s failure to appear resulted in these bills. 

CCP § 2025.450(g)(2) provides:

On motion of any other party who, in person or by attorney, attended at the time and place specified in the deposition notice in the expectation that the deponent's testimony would be taken, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of that party and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

            Here, Plaintiff does not dispute being properly served with the deposition notice setting his deposition for June 23, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.  As Defendants contend, Plaintiff is not very specific about how the timing “mix up” occurred, other than to say Plaintiff was confused by the instructions he received about the deposition, such that the Court cannot determine that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  Plaintiff’s counsel does not dispute failing to respond to Defendants’ counsel’s efforts to meet and confer about the deposition fees.

Defendants’ motion is granted.  Defendants seek sanctions against Plaintiff only.   Defendants, however, are not awarded the full amount requested.  Defendants are awarded one hour for preparing the motion and one hour total for the reply and appearing at the hearing all at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour, for a total of $400 in attorney fees.  Further, Defendants are awarded the $810 fee for the certificate of non-appearance, the $395 videographer cancellation fee, and the motion filing fee of $60 as costs.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,665.00, within thirty (30) days.

Defendants 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 2^nd day of February 2023