Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV114998, Date: 2024-12-20 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. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. 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.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Defendant FPI Management, Inc.’s motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Isaiah Sampson is granted. Plaintiff Isaiah Sampson is ordered to appear for deposition and produce documents within 10 days of this ruling.

Defendant FPI Management, Inc.’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff Sampson and his counsel, jointly and severally, is granted in the amount of $2,793.00, payable within 20 days.

Defendant FPI Management, Inc.’s motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Larisha Perkins is granted. Plaintiff Larisha Perkins is ordered to appear for deposition and produce documents within 10 days of this ruling.

Defendant FPI Management, Inc.’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff Perkins and her counsel, jointly and severally, is granted in the amount of $3,288.00, payable within 20 days.

Defendant FPI Management, Inc. (“FPI”) (“Moving Defendant”) moves to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Isaiah Sampson (“Sampson”) (“Plaintiff”) to appear remotely for deposition. (Notice of Motion Sampson, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §2025.450.) Moving Defendant also requests sanctions in the amount of $2,793.00 against Plaintiff Sampson and his counsel, jointly and severally. (Notice of Motion Sampson, pg. 2.)

Moving Defendant moves to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Larisha Perkins (“Perkins”) (“Plaintiff”) to appear remotely for deposition. (Notice of Motion Perkins, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §2025.450.) Moving Defendant also requests sanctions in the amount of $3,288.00 against Plaintiff Perkins and her counsel, jointly and severally. (Notice of Motion Perkins, pg. 2.)

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).)

Moving Defendant’s counsel’s declaration stated that she exchanged correspondence with Plaintiff’s counsel via Microsoft Teams regarding the instant motion, and Plaintiff and Moving Defendant were unable to reach an agreement. (See Decl. of Eaton ¶10.) Moving Defendant’s counsel’s declaration substantially complies with the requirements of C.C.P. §2016.040. Accordingly, the Court will consider Moving Defendant’s motion.

On June 21, 2024, Moving Defendant served a notice for the deposition of Plaintiff Sampson set for July 26, 2024, to take place in person in Los Angeles, California. (Decl. of Eaton ¶2, Exh. A.) Having received no objection to the deposition notice, Moving Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel, Jacob Partiyeli (“Partiyeli”), on July 23, 2024, via email to confirm he would be producing Plaintiff Sampson for his deposition on July 26, 2024. (Decl. of Eaton ¶3.) Plaintiff’s counsel responded on July 24, 2024, stating that he mailed objections to the deposition notice. (Decl. of Eaton ¶3.) That same day, Moving Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that they had not received objections to the deposition notice and requested that Plaintiff’s counsel provide the objections via electronic mail for review. (Decl. of Eaton ¶3.) Moving Defendant received no response from Plaintiff’s counsel and no objections, so Moving Defendant cancelled Plaintiff’s deposition. (Decl. of Eaton ¶3.)

On October 10, 2024, Moving Defendant served via electronic mail its notice of deposition of Plaintiff Sampson with Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) for October 25, 2024. (Decl. of Eaton ¶4.) On October 23, 2024, Moving Defendant’s counsel received Plaintiff’s objection to the notice of deposition stating Plaintiff would not appear at his deposition. (Decl. of Eaton ¶5, Exh. D.)

On October 23, 2024, Moving Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel via email requesting dates of availability in November in order to reschedule the deposition of Plaintiff Sampson; Moving Defendant’s counsel did not receive a response. (Decl. of Eaton ¶6.) On October 24, 2024, Moving Defendant’s counsel again emailed Plaintiff’s counsel attempting to obtain available dates in November for Plaintiff Sampson’s deposition. (Decl. of Eaton ¶6.) Plaintiff’s counsel responded, stating he would not be available until early January, but failed to provide any dates. (Decl. of Eaton ¶6.) Moving Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that they would need to take Plaintiff’s deposition prior to January 2025 and informed him that should he fail to provide earlier dates, Moving Defendant’s counsel would re-notice Plaintiff’s deposition for November 7th, 2024. (Decl. of Eaton ¶6, Exh. E.) Plaintiff’s counsel refused to provide earlier dates. (Decl. of Eaton ¶6, Exh. E.)

On October 25, 2024, Moving Defendant’s counsel served all counsel via electronic mail with its Amended Notice of Deposition of Plaintiff Sampson with RFP scheduling Plaintiff Sampson’s deposition in this case for November 7, 2024. (Decl. of Eaton ¶7.)

Plaintiff did not object to the notice and did not appear for the deposition; a notice of non-appearance was taken. (Decl. of Eaton ¶8, Exh. G.)

Moving Defendant filed the instant motion on December 11, 2024. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 16, 2024. Moving Defendant filed its reply on December 17, 2024.

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 Moving Defendant’s motion pursuant to C.C.P. §2025.450 and orders Plaintiff Sampson to appear for deposition and produce documents and things within ten (10) days of this Court’s ruling. Plaintiff was properly served with a deposition notice and failed to appear for a properly noticed deposition.

C.C.P. §2025.450(g)(1) states, “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 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.”

Moving Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $2,793.00 against Plaintiff Sampson and his counsel of record, jointly and severally.

The Court grants Moving Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $2,793.00 calculated as follows:

Moving Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and his Counsel of record, jointly and severally, is granted in the amount of $2,793.00, payable within 20 days.

Moving Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff Sampson and his Counsel of record, jointly and severally, is granted in the amount of $2,793.00, payable within 20 days.

On June 21, 2024, Moving Defendant served a notice for the deposition of Plaintiff Perkins set for July 25, 2024, to take place in person in Los Angeles, California. (Decl. of Eaton ¶2, Exh. A.) Having received no objection to the deposition notice, Moving Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel on July 23, 2024, via email to confirm he would be producing Plaintiff Sampson for his deposition on July 26, 2024. (Decl. of Eaton ¶3.) Plaintiff’s counsel responded on July 24, 2024, stating that he mailed objections to the deposition notice. (Decl. of Eaton ¶3.) That same day, Moving Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that they had not received objections to the deposition notice and requested that Plaintiff’s counsel provide the objections via electronic mail for review. (Decl. of Eaton ¶3.) Moving Defendant received no response from Plaintiff’s counsel and no objections, so Moving Defendant cancelled Plaintiff’s deposition. (Decl. of Eaton ¶3.)

On October 10, 2024, Moving Defendant served via electronic mail its notice of deposition of Plaintiff Perkins with RFP for October 24, 2024. (Decl. of Eaton ¶4.) On October 23, 2024, Moving Defendant’s counsel received Plaintiff’s objection to the notice of deposition stating Plaintiff would not appear at his deposition. (Decl. of Eaton ¶5, Exh. D.)

On October 23, 2024, Moving Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel via email requesting dates of availability in November in order to reschedule the deposition of Plaintiff Perkins; Moving Defendant’s counsel did not receive a response. (Decl. of Eaton ¶6.) On October 24, 2024, Moving Defendant’s counsel again emailed Plaintiff’s counsel attempting to obtain available dates in November for Plaintiff Perkins’ deposition. (Decl. of Eaton ¶6.) Plaintiff’s counsel responded, stating he would not be available until early January, but failed to provide any dates. (Decl. of Eaton ¶6.) Moving Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that they would need to take Plaintiff’s deposition prior to January 2025, and informed him that should he fail to provide earlier dates, Moving Defendant’s counsel would re-notice Plaintiff’s deposition for November 6th, 2024. (Decl. of Eaton ¶6, Exh. E.) Plaintiff’s counsel refused to provide earlier dates. (Decl. of Eaton ¶6, Exh. E.)

Plaintiff did not object to the notice and did not appear for the deposition; a notice of non-appearance was taken. (Decl. of Eaton ¶8, Exh. G.)

Moving Defendant filed the instant motion on December 11, 2024. Plaintiff filed her opposition on December 16, 2024. Moving Defendant filed its reply on December 17, 2024.

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.

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

Moving Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $2,793.00 against Plaintiff Perkins and her counsel of record, jointly and severally.

The Court grants Moving Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $2,793.00 calculated as follows:

Moving Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and his Counsel of record, jointly and severally, is granted in the amount of $3,288.00, payable within 20 days.

Moving Defendant’s motion to compel is granted. Plaintiff Perkins is to appear for deposition with 10 days of this ruling.

Moving Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff Perkins and her Counsel of record, jointly and severally, is granted in the amount of $3,288.00, payable within 20 days.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court