Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Cheragian vs. Starbucks, LLC", Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling
Defendants Starbucks Corporation and South Coast Plaza (“Defendants” together) Motion to Compel (“Motion”) plaintiff Mehrdohkt Cheragian’s (“Plaintiff”) deposition is TENTATIVELY GRANTED.
The court must first point out Plaintiff’s counsel has in several instances cited to inapplicable rules and law. In Plaintiff’s opposition to the first deposition notice, Plaintiff cited to Los Angeles County Superior Court (“LACSC”) Rule, Local Rule 7.12(e)(2). Not only is a LACSC rule not applicable in an Orange County Superior Court action, but the rule cited appears to have involved appearances by children in juvenile court and would not be applicable to this civil matter. Additionally, Plaintiff’s opposition to the Motion cites to “Civ. Proc. Code § 2025(j)(3)(g),” which appears to have been repealed in 2005, and thus is not good law. Plaintiff is cautioned to only cite to relevant, good, and citable laws and rules moving forward.
As to the merits of the Motion itself, though Defendants probably should have attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff to obtain an available date for deposition after the first objection, Defendants did eventually properly meet and confer only to be told that no deposition dates would be provided until an unnamed defendant was added to this case. This is an improper reason for not submitting to an authorized discovery method. Further, Plaintiff failed to either object or appear at the 11/18/21 deposition date, despite it being properly noticed. Defendants’ Motion pursuant to (Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.450(a) is therefore proper.
The court notes parties have apparently agreed to Plaintiff’s deposition being scheduled for 08/16/22. The Motion is TENTATIVELY GRANTED pending an update of the court on the status of the deposition. If the deposition has been taken, then the court will MOOT the part of the order compelling Plaintiff to appear. If Plaintiff again failed to appear for the noticed deposition on 08/16/22, then the court’s order compelling Plaintiff to appear for deposition within 10-days of the hearing will remain.
The request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorneys of record is GRANTED pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010(d) and 2025.450(c)(1) as Defendants were required to file the Motion before Plaintiff agreed to submit to the deposition, and even then, Plaintiff did not agree until shortly before her opposition was due and after over a month had transpired sine the Motion had been filed.
The court notes defense counsel did not specify the number of hours he expended on issues related to this Motion, however basic math suggests Defendants are seeking five hours’ worth of time. Under the lodestar method, the court determines the reasonable amount of time expended on this Motion as three hours total. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095; Donahue v. Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 272.)
$350/hr. x 3 hrs. + $60 fee = $1,110.00
The monetary sanctions awarded against Plaintiff and her counsel of record and in favor of Defendants are due within 15-days.
Defendants to give notice.