Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV343230, Date: 2024-07-17 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s unopposed motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Markella Thanou is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition and produce documents within 10 days of this ruling.

Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel, Kingsely Opia Enwemuche, jointly and severally, is granted in the amount of $2,230.00. Sanctions are payable within 20 days of this ruling.

Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s unopposed motion to compel the deposition of Non-party Amalia Thanou is granted. Amalia Thanou is ordered to appear for deposition and produce documents within 10 days of this ruling.

Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“CSMC”) (“Defendant”) moves unopposed to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Markella Thanou (“Markella”) (“Plaintiff”) to appear for deposition and produce documents within ten (10) days of this Court’s ruling. (Notice of Motion Markella, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §§2023.010 et seq., 2025.010, et seq., 2025.450 et seq.) Defendant also requests sanctions in the amount of $1,060.00 against Plaintiff and her attorney for failing to comply with authorized discovery without substantial justification. (Notice of Motion Markella, pg. 2.)

Defendant moves unopposed to compel the deposition of Non-party Amalia Thanou (“Amalia”) to appear for deposition and produce documents within ten (10) days of this Court’s ruling. (Notice of Motion Amalia, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §§2025.010, et seq., 2025.440 et seq.)

A motion to compel a deposition must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (C.C.P. §§2016.040, 2025.480(b).)

Defendant’s counsel declares that on June 11, 2024, his office emailed Plaintiff’s counsel the Zoom information for Plaintiff’s June 13, 2024, deposition and asked that plaintiff’s counsel confirm she would appear for deposition; Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond. (Decl. of Moulin ¶16.) Defendant’s counsel declares that on June 12, 2024, he emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to confirm that Plaintiff would appear for deposition as noticed on June 13, 2024. (Decl. of Moulin ¶17.) Defendant’s counsel declares that on June 12, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated by email that neither Plaintiff nor Non-party witness Amalia would appear for deposition. (Decl. of Moulin ¶18.) Defendant’s counsel declares Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he was in trial in Van Nuys and unavailable, and he agreed to produce Plaintiff and Amalia for depositions on June 25, 2024, and June 28, 2024, respectively. (Decl. of Moulin ¶18.)

Defendant’s counsel declares that on June 24, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel requested that Plaintiff’s deposition be rescheduled to June 28, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. (Supp.-Decl. of Moulin ¶5.) Defendant’s counsel declares he accommodated Plaintiff’s counsel’s request and rescheduled Plaintiff’s deposition for June 28, 2024. (Supp.-Decl. of Moulin ¶5, Exh. B.)

Defendant’s counsel declares that on June 25, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel advised him that Plaintiff’s deposition on June 28, 2024, would be rescheduled to the following week, and agreed to produce Plaintiff for deposition on July 5, 2024. (Supp.-Decl. of Moulin ¶6, Exh. C.)

At approximately 10:00 a.m. on July 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel notified Defendant’s counsel that there was a “medical emergency,” and Plaintiff would not appear for deposition as noticed. (Supp.-Decl. of Moulin ¶7, Exh. D.) Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he would provide a doctor’s note. (Supp.-Decl. of Moulin ¶7.) To date, Plaintiff’s counsel has not produced his client for deposition; has not provided another date for her deposition; and has not provided any doctor’s note explaining the “medical emergency” or excusing plaintiff’s non-appearance. (Supp.-Decl. of Moulin ¶9.)

Defendant’s counsel’s declaration substantially complies with the requirements of C.C.P. §2016.040.

Defendant’s counsel served plaintiff’s counsel with Notice of Plaintiff’s Deposition and Request for Production of Documents (“Notice”) on April 11, 2024. The Notice required that Plaintiff present for deposition via Zoom on June 13, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel did not object to the Notice. Plaintiff’s counsel did not contact Defendant’s counsel to discuss the deposition or to request a different date until defense counsel contacted plaintiff to confirm the deposition on June 12, 2024. (Decl. of Moulin ¶12, Exh. A.)

On June 11, 2024, Defendant’s counsel’s office emailed Plaintiff’s counsel the Zoom information or Plaintiff’s June 13, 2024, deposition and asked that plaintiff’s counsel confirm she would appear for deposition; Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond. (Decl. of Moulin ¶16.) On June 12, 2024, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to confirm that Plaintiff would appear for deposition as noticed on June 13, 2024. (Decl. of Moulin ¶17.) On June 12, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated by email that neither Plaintiff nor Non-party witness Amalia would appear for deposition. (Decl. of Moulin ¶18.) Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he was in trial in Van Nuys and unavailable, and he agreed to produce Plaintiff and Amalia for depositions on June 25, 2024, and June 28, 2024, respectively. (Decl. of Moulin ¶18.)

On June 24, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel requested that Plaintiff’s deposition be rescheduled to June 28, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. (Supp.-Decl. of Moulin ¶5.) Defendant’s counsel accommodated Plaintiff’s counsel’s request and rescheduled Plaintiff’s deposition for June 28, 2024. (Supp.-Decl. of Moulin ¶5, Exh. B.)

On June 25, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel advised him that Plaintiff’s deposition on June 28, 2024, would be rescheduled to the following week, and agreed to produce Plaintiff for deposition on July 5, 2024. (Supp.-Decl. of Molin ¶6, Exh. C.)

At approximately 10:00 a.m. on July 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel notified Defendant’s counsel that there was a “medical emergency,” and Plaintiff would not appear for deposition as noticed. (Supp.-Decl. of Molin ¶7, Exh. D.) Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he would provide a doctor’s note. (Supp.-Decl. of Molin ¶7.) To date, Plaintiff’s counsel has not produced his client for deposition; has not provided another date for her deposition; and has not provided any doctor’s note explaining the “medical emergency” or excusing plaintiff’s non-appearance. (Supp.-Decl. of Molin ¶9.)

Defendant filed the instant motion on June 20, 2024. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

C.C.P. §2025.280(a) provides, in part, “[t]he service of deposition notice under Section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action . . . to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (C.C.P. §2025.280(a).)

(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . , 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, . . . 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, . . . described in the deposition notice.

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document . . . 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 . . . described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

The Court grants Defendant’s motion pursuant to C.C.P. §2025.450 and orders Plaintiff to appear for deposition and produce documents and things within ten (10) days of this Court’s ruling. Plaintiff was properly served with four deposition notices and failed to appear for the properly noticed depositions.

If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 . . . in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent . . . 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.

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel, Kingsely Opia Enwemuche, is granted. The Court calculates sanctions in the amount of $2,230.00 as follows:

(3 hours x $200/hour) + $60 filing fee + $1,570.00 court reporter fees for Plaintiff’s failure to appear at deposition on June 13, 2024, and July 5, 2024 = $2,230.00

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel Kingsely Opia Enwemuche, jointly and severally, is granted in the amount of $2,230.00. Sanctions are payable within 20 days of this ruling.

Defendant’s counsel declares that his office served Plaintiff’s counsel with Notice of Testimony and Records Deposition of Amalia (“Notice”) by email on April 25, 2024. (Decl. of Moulin ¶11.) Defendant’s counsel declares the Notice set the deposition for June 14, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., via Zoom. (Decl. of Moulin ¶11, Exh. A.) Defense counsel sent a letter with the Notice indicating its understanding that Plaintiff’s counsel would represent Amalia, a non-party witness, at deposition. (Decl. of Moulin ¶11.) Defendant’s counsel declares Plaintiff’s counsel never served objections to the deposition nor did Plaintiff’s counsel advise Defendant’s counsel that he did not represent Amalia, that he would not produce Amalia for deposition, or that Defendant would have to subpoena Amalia for deposition. (Decl. of Moulin ¶12.)

Defendant’s counsel declares that on June 11, 2024, his office emailed Plaintiff’s counsel the Zoom information for Amalia’s June 14, 2024, deposition and asked that plaintiff’s counsel to confirm Amalia would appear for deposition; Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond. (Decl. of Moulin ¶16.)

On June 12, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated by email that neither Plaintiff nor Non-party witness Amalia would appear for deposition. (Decl. of Moulin ¶18.) Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he was in trial in Van Nuys and unavailable, and he agreed to produce Amalia for deposition on June 25, 2024. (Decl. of Moulin ¶18.)

Defendant’s counsel declares that on June 25, 2024, Defendant’s counsel appeared via Zoom for Amalia’s deposition. (Supp.-Decl. of Moulin ¶5.) Amalia did not have video access on her phone, stated that she was sick, and could not walk 30 meters to a computer in her home to access the Zoom deposition. (Supp.-Decl. of Moulin ¶5.) The deposition was continued because Amalia could not appear via videoconference. (Supp.-Decl. of Moulin ¶5, Exh. B.)

Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to make Amalia available for deposition on June 28, 2024. (Supp.-Decl. of Moulin ¶7.)

At approximately 8:12 a.m. on June 28, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel that Amalia would not be able to appear for deposition because of “her health.” (Supp.-Decl. of Moulin ¶8, Exh. D.) To date, Plaintiff’s counsel has not produced Amalia for deposition and has not provided another date for her deposition. (Supp.-Decl. of Moulin ¶11.)

Defendant’s counsel’s declaration substantially complies with the requirements of C.C.P. §2016.040.

At approximately 10:00 a.m. on July 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel notified Defendant’s counsel that there was a “medical emergency,” and Plaintiff would not appear for deposition as noticed. (Supp.-Decl. of Molin ¶7, Exh. D.) Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he would provide a doctor’s note. (Supp.-Decl. of Molin ¶7.) To date, Plaintiff’s counsel has not produced his client for deposition; has not provided another date for her deposition; and has not provided any doctor’s note explaining the “medical emergency” or excusing plaintiff’s non-appearance. (Supp.-Decl. of Molin ¶9.)

Defendant filed the instant motion on June 20, 2024. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

If a nonparty disobeys a deposition subpoena, the subpoenaing party may seek a court order compelling the non-party to comply with the subpoena within 60 days after completion of the deposition record. (C.C.P. §2025.480(b); see Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 127.)

The Court grants Defendant’s motion pursuant to C.C.P. §2025.480(b) and orders Amalia to appear for deposition and produce documents and things within ten (10) days of this Court’s ruling. Amalia was properly served with four deposition notices and failed to appear for the properly noticed depositions.

Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel the deposition of Amalia is granted. Amalia is to appear for deposition with 10 days of this ruling.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court