Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV40805, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40805    Hearing Date: February 28, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS (3)

Date:       2/28/23 (8:30 AM)                 

Case:      12 Albany, LLC v. OG Farmz, Inc. et al. (21STCV40805)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff 12 Albany, LLC’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Deposition of Chong Sang Eric Tak is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff 12 Albany, LLC’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Deposition of OG Farmz, Inc.’s Person Most Qualified is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff 12 Albany, LLC’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Deposition of The One1 Entertainment, Inc.’s Person Most Qualified is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff 12 Albany, LLC moves to compel the depositions of (1) defendant Chong Sang Eric Tak, (2) the Person Most Qualified for defendant OG Farmz, Inc., and (3) the Person Most Qualified for defendant The One1 Entertainment, Inc. Plaintiff also moves to compel production of the documents requested in the deposition notices.

“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(a).)

On December 12, 2022, plaintiff served notices of depositions on defendants, as listed above. (Chung Decl. ¶ 6 & Exs. E.) The notices also included document requests. (Chung Decl. ¶ 6 & Exs. E.) The deposition of Tak was scheduled for December 27, 2022. The deposition of defendant OG Farmz’s Person Most Qualified was scheduled for December 28, 2022. The deposition of The One1 Entertainment, Inc.’s Person Most Qualified was scheduled for December 29, 2022.

Before and after service of the notices of deposition, to avoid a hearing on the instant motions, plaintiff attempted to obtain available dates from defendants for deposition. (Chung Decl.  ¶¶ 2-5, 7-11 & Exs. A-D, F-J.) On December 5, 2022, defense counsel stated that he could not reach his clients. (Chung Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. C.) On December 23, 2022, defense counsel indicated that he could not confirm if defendants would appear for deposition because he could not reach the clients. (Chung Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. H.) Despite meeting and conferring, defendants have not indicated when they would be available for deposition. (Chung Decl. ¶ 11.) Defendants also have not served any valid objection to the deposition notices. (Chung Decl. ¶ 11.)

Plaintiff demonstrates that defendants failed to proceed with the duly noticed depositions and that it contacted deponents about the nonappearance. (CCP § 2024.450(a), (b)(2).)

With respect to the requests for documents in the notice of deposition, however, plaintiff does not set forth good cause justifying its document requests. CCP § 2025.450(b)(1) provides that a party moving for production of documents described in a notice of deposition must state specific facts showing good cause justifying the production. “[T]o establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” (Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224, disapproved of on other grounds in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531.) Plaintiff makes no attempt to discuss how the documents requested in the deposition notices would prove or disprove any disputed fact.

For the foregoing reasons, the motions are GRANTED IN PART as follows:

• Defendant Chong Sang Eric Tak is ordered to appear for deposition via videoconferencing software on _________________ at __________.

• The Person Most Qualified for defendant OG Farmz, Inc. is ordered to appear for deposition via videoconferencing software on _________________ at __________.

• The Person Most Qualified for defendant The One1 Entertainment, Inc. is ordered to appear for deposition via videoconferencing software on _________________ at __________.

The depositions of the Persons Most Qualified shall pertain to the matters set forth in Attachment 1 of the deponent’s respective deposition notice. No document production is required.

For failing to appear at deposition, thereby forcing plaintiff to file these three motions, the Court imposes monetary sanctions on each defendant as follows:

·                     $520.83 against defendant Chong Sang Eric Tak

·                     $520.83 against defendant OG Farmz, Inc.

·                     $520.84 against defendant The One1 Entertainment, Inc.

The monetary sanctions are based on 1 hour of attorney Jay J. Chung’s time preparing all three motions (instead of 1 hour for each motion) at an hourly rate of $550, 2.5 hours for the time associates spent in preparing the motion (instead of 2.5 hours for each motion) at an hourly rate of $295, and 0.5 hours of attorney Chung’s time preparing a notice of non-opposition and preparing for and attending the hearing for all three motions (instead of 1.3 hours per motion for preparing a reply and preparing for and attending the hearing) at an hourly rate of $550. The total sanctions are allocated equally to each of the three defendants.

No monetary sanctions are imposed against defense counsel because CCP § 2025.450(g)(1) allows for the imposition of monetary sanctions “against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated” only.

Monetary sanctions shall be paid to counsel for plaintiff 12 Albany, LLC within 30 days hereof.