Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV03538, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03538    Hearing Date: January 24, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff Guiliana Di Lauro filed this negligence action against Defendants Carlyle Nixon and Pacific Bell Telephone Company (erroneously sued as AT&T, Inc.) arising from an auto collision.

            On December 11, 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition on January 15, 2025. Defendants filed their reply on January 16, 2025.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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 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 … described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a).)

DISCUSSION

            Defendants served a Notice of Deposition on September 5, 2024, setting Plaintiff’s deposition for October 15, 2024. (Hiura Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) On October 10, 2024, defense counsel wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel to confirm Plaintiff’s appearance on October 15, 2024. (Id., ¶ 3, Ex. B.) Because no objections had been received, defense counsel confirmed the October 15 date and notified Plaintiff’s counsel accordingly. (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. C.) On October 14, 2024, defense counsel sent an email with the Zoom link to the deposition and warned Plaintiff’s counsel that failure to appear would result in sanctions. (Id., ¶ 5, Ex. D.) Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel appeared for the deposition on October 15, 2024. (Id., ¶ 6, Ex. E.) On October 31, 2024, defense counsel wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel warning of a motion to compel if alternative dates were not provided. (Id., ¶ 7, Ex. F.)

            Plaintiff’s counsel confirms that they failed to appear and did not notify Defendants of any scheduling conflicts or unavailability, but avers that this was the result of repeated errors by an assistant. (Shakhbazyan Decl. ¶¶ 3-7.) Plaintiff’s counsel provided deposition dates after this motion was filed. (Id., ¶ 8.)

            Based on the above facts, an order compelling the deposition is warranted to ensure it takes place on a specified date without further delay. However, sanctions are not warranted due to the clerical errors in calendaring and communication.

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion to compel deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall appear for deposition on ____________________, 2025. Sanctions are denied.