Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV25169, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV25169    Hearing Date: September 21, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendants Angela Barrera and Shapour Raziour’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Michaela Reed; Defendants Angela Barrera and Shapour Raziour’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Latrice Franklin

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

BACKGROUND

On July 17, 2019, Plaintiffs Michaela Reed (“Reed”) and Latrice Franklin (“Franklin”) filed this action against Defendants Angela Barrera (“Barrera”) and Shapour Raziour (“Raziour”) for motor vehicle negligence.

On July 15, 2021, Defendants filed an answer.

On August 29, 2022, Defendants filed Motions to Compel Plaintiffs Latrice Franklin and Michaela Reed’s Depositions to be heard on September 21, 2022.

Trial is currently scheduled for December 19, 2022

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request the Court order Plaintiffs to appear for her deposition within 5 days of the date of this hearing. Defendants also request the Court impose monetary sanctions against Pla totaling $2,061.65 and Reed totaling $1,661.65.

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

Deposition

In early June, Defendants requested Plaintiffs’ availability for deposition in either June or July. Plaintiffs never provided a date for either deposition, so Defendants noticed their deposition for July 28, 2022. Plaintiffs stated they were not available, but never objected to the deposition or provided alternative dates. They did not appear for the properly noticed depositions. The Court finds good cause and grants the motion.

Sanctions

Defendants are entitled to sanctions due to misuse of the discovery process.

Defendants request $2,061.65 in sanctions for Franklin, based on 10 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $200.00 per hour, and one $61.65 filling fee. 6 hours were spent drafting the motion, 3 hours were anticipated in replying to any opposition, and 1 in appearing at the hearing. The Court awards sanctions totaling $661.65 in sanctions against Franklin.

Defendants request $1,661.65 in sanctions for Reed, based on 8 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $200.00 per hour, and one $61.65 filling fee. 5 hours were spent drafting the motion and 3 hours were anticipated in replying to any opposition. The Court awards sanctions totaling $461.65 in sanctions against Reed.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Angela Barrera and Shapour Raziour’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Michaela Reed is GRANTED. Reed is ordered to appear for a mutually agreed upon deposition within 10 days of the hearing on this motion.

Defendants Angela Barrera and Shapour Raziour’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Latrice Franklin is GRANTED. Franklin is ordered to appear for a mutually agreed upon deposition within 10 days of the hearing on this motion.

Defendants Angela Barrera and Shapour Raziour’s Requests for Sanctions are GRANTED. Franklin and Franklin’s counsel are ordered to pay Defendants $661.65 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on this motion. Reed and Reed’s counsel are ordered to pay Defendants $661.65 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on this 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.