Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 24STCV12810, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV12810    Hearing Date: June 2, 2025    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Caliwood Pictures, LLC’s amended motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Jojo Ryder is granted.  Defendant Ryder is ordered to appear for deposition and produce documents within 10 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff Caliwood Pictures, LLC’s request for sanctions is denied.

          Plaintiff Caliwood Pictures, LLC (“Caliwood”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Jojo Ryder (“Ryder”) (“Defendant”).  (Notice of Amended Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2024.450.)  Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $6,715.00.  (Notice of Amended Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2024.450(g)(1).)[1]

          Meet and Confer

A motion to compel a deposition must be accompanied by meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.  (C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(2).)

Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration does not state that Plaintiff contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.  (C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(2); see Decl. of Reynolds.)  Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration does not substantially comply with the requirements of C.C.P. §2025.450(b).  Regardless, the Court in its discretion will consider Plaintiff’s motion.

Background

On December 5, 2024, Plaintiff served a notice for the deposition of Ryder set for December 16, 2024.  (See Decl. of Reynolds ¶3, Exh. B.) 

On December 12, 2025, Ryder’s counsel cancelled the December 16, 2024, deposition, claiming that one of Ryder’s attorneys had a medical issue that prevented him from defending the deposition.  (See Decl. of Reynolds ¶5, Exh. C.)  

On January 3, 2025, Ryder’s counsel finally provided that “JoJo Ryder is available for a deposition from January 28, 2025, through January 31, 2025.” (See Decl. of Reynolds ¶6, Exh. D.)  Plaintiff then noticed the rescheduled deposition to occur on January 29, 2025.  (See Decl. of Reynolds ¶7, Exh. E.)

On January 27, 2025, Ryder’s counsel cancelled his deposition again, stating, “Due to the recent fires, JoJo was under evacuation orders for two weeks, which delayed his travel overseas for filming. At this time, he remains overseas and is unavailable to proceed with the deposition.”  (See Decl. of Reynolds ¶9, Exh. F.)

On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff sent a second amended notice of the deposition to occur on February 7, 2025.  (See Decl. of Reynolds ¶10, Exh. G.)

After the second amended notice was served, Ryder’s counsel responded on February 3, 2025, that “JoJo Ryder’s shooting schedule was postponed due to the fires, causing a delay in his travel overseas for production. As a result, his shooting dates overlapped with the previous deposition timeframe. JoJo remains overseas for filming and is unavailable for the February 7, 2025, deposition.”  (See Decl. of Reynolds ¶11, Exh. H.)  Ryder’s counsel further claimed that although Ryder is represented by both Jerry Kaplan and David Scott Kadin, the deposition would need to be further postponed from January until “between April 16-18” because Mr. Kaplan was spending the month of March overseas.  (See Decl. of Reynolds ¶11, Exh. H.)

Plaintiff noticed Ryder’s rescheduled deposition for April 17, 2025, which was within the date range of April 16-18, 2025, that Ryder’s counsel had offered. (See Decl. of Reynolds ¶¶11, 14, Exhs. H, K.)  On April 16, 2025, the day before the deposition, that Ryder cancelled his deposition again, providing no explanation for the cancellation other than the vague assertion that he was “out of town” and “unable to attend.” (See Decl. of Reynolds ¶16, Exh. L.)

Plaintiff filed its initial motion on February 26, 2025.  Plaintiff filed its amended motion on May 6, 2025.  Ryder filed his opposition on May 19, 2025.  Plaintiff filed its reply on May 23, 2025.

          Discussion

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).)

C.C.P. §2025.450 states, in pertinent part, as follows:

(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.

(C.C.P. §2025.450.)

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

          Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

Sanctions

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Ryder is denied on the basis Plaintiff did not meet and confer with Ryder’s counsel on the instant motion, improperly noticed who sanctions are sought against, and improperly noticed the statute under which it moves for sanctions.  (See C.C.P. §2023.040 [“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”], emphasis added.)

Conclusion

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

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.

Dated:  June _____, 2025