Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCP03824, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP03824    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

            This is a dispute between cousins over valuation of shares of a family-owned business.

            Plaintiff Abbie Gougerchian moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Patrick Gogerchin and seeks the imposition of sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING

            The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a deposition date, and to inform the Court.

            If the parties agree to a date, then the hearing on this motion will be continued to ensure that Defendant appears for the deposition. If the parties do not agree, then the motion to compel deposition will be granted.

In either case, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant Patrick Gogerchin and his counsel of record, jointly and severally in the reduced amount of $2,311. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days.

ANALYSIS

Discussion

            Plaintiff Abbie Gougerchian moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Patrick Gogerchin, which was originally schedule to occur on September 7, 2023. Defendant did not appear for the deposition and did not even serve any written objections, nor file any motions in response to the deposition notice. (See Certificate of Non-Appearance, Exh. 10; Stone Decl., ¶¶ 15-17.)

(a) 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.

(b) 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, 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.

. . .

(g)

(1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition 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.

. . .

(Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.450(a), (b), (g).)

            Here, the Declaration of Elliott H. Stone does not reflect that, after Defendant Gogerchin failed to appear for his September 7, 2023 deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel, nor attempted to contact the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance, as required by Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.450(b)(2). (Stone Decl., ¶ 18.)

            Because this requirement was not satisfied, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer now. The Court expects the parties to reach an agreement as to the deposition date and to notify the Court.

            The notice of deposition does not include a request for documents, so good cause for production need not be shown.

            If the parties agree to a date, then the hearing on this motion will be continued to ensure that Defendant appears for the deposition. If the parties do not agree, then the motion to compel deposition will be granted. In either case, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant Patrick Gogerchin and his counsel of record, jointly and severally in the reduced amount of $2,311 (3 hours at $450/hour, plus $901 non-appearance fee and a $60 filing fee—Stone Decl., ¶ 23.) Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days.