Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV00677, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00677    Hearing Date: April 17, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Alfonso Leon Baltazar’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Lael Williams; Plaintiff Alfonso Leon Baltazar’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Flex Drive Services, LLC’s Employee Shandra Liyanarchi

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On January 7, 2022, Plaintiff Alfonso Leon Baltazar (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Flex Drive Services, LLC (“FDS”), Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) and Lael Williams (“Williams”) for negligence and negligence per se.

On February 14, 2022, FDS and Williams filed an answer. On May 20, 2022, Lyft filed an answer.

On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed Motions to Compel Defendants’ Depositions to be heard on April 17, 2023.

Trial is currently scheduled for July 7, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court order Williams to appear for his continued deposition. Plaintiff also requests the Court impose sanctions totaling $1,660.00.

Plaintiff requests the Court order FDS to produce FDS’s employee, Shandra Liyanarchi (“Liyanarchi”) for a deposition. Plaintiff also requests the Court impose sanctions totaling $1,660.00.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450 allows the Court to compel a party’s appearance and to produce documents.

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action… without having served a valid objection… fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document 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 or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” A motion under subdivision (a) 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 or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

CCP § 2025.450 provides that if a motion made under 2025.450 is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition 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.

Misuse of the discovery process includes (c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense; (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery; and (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. CCP § 2023.010.

DISCUSSION

On November 29, 2022, Williams appeared for his original deposition, but left after approximately 30 minutes. Williams’s attorney agreed to produce his client again for volume two of his deposition; at said deposition, there was an internet problem, resulting in the deposition being canceled. William’s deposition was re-noticed for April 6, 2023, but did not go forward.

Plaintiff has been attempting to take Liyanarchi’s deposition since October 2022. Plaintiff has noticed this deposition three times, but FDS has refused to provide a date for the deposition of Liyanarchi.

Plaintiff has taken the proper steps to depose both Williams and Liyanarchi; Williams and FDS have failed to provide deposition dates or appear for otherwise scheduled depositions. The Court finds good cause and grants the motion.

Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions due to Williams and FDS failure to appear for or provide reasonable dates for their depositions. Plaintiff requests sanctions of $1,660.00 for each motion, based upon 4 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $400.00 per hour, and 1 $60.00 filling fee. Attorney’s work is based upon 2 hours drafting the motion and 2 hours reviewing the opposition and appearing at the hearing. As the motions are unopposed, substantially similar and set to be heard concurrently, the Court awards sanctions totaling $870.00, based on 3 hours of attorney’s work at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour, across both motions. The sanctions are divided between the two relevant defendants, with each ordered to pay $435.00 in sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Alfonso Leon Baltazar’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Lael Williams is GRANTED. Williams is ordered to appear for a deposition within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Alfonso Leon Baltazar’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Flex Drive Services, LLC’s Employee Shandra Liyanarchi is GRANTED. FDS is ordered to produce Liyanarchi for a deposition within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Alfonso Leon Baltazar’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Williams and Williams’s counsel are ordered to pay Plaintiff $435.00 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the motion. FDS and FDS’s counsel are ordered to pay Plaintiff $435.00 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.