Judge: David Sotelo, Case: 22STCV11425, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV11425 Hearing Date: October 3, 2022 Dept: 40
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Leia
Salazar.
Plaintiff
moves the Court to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ.
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Defendant’s PMQ is MOOT.
Defendant is ordered to pay $2,035 in sanctions because this Motion was
required to gain Defendant’s compliance with its discovery obligation.
Plaintiff’s
Objections Nos. 1-2 are OVERRULED.
Motion
to Compel Deposit:
Plaintiff moves the Court to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ because
despite Plaintiff’s attempts to meet and confer to obtain dates for the
deposition, Defendant has failed to provide any dates for the deposition to take
place. (Ullman Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)
Defendant
contends that the Motion should be denied because it has offered February 7,
2023 for the deposition of its PMQ.
Defendant’s counsel represents in a declaration signed under penalty of
perjury that it the earliest date available for its PMQ. (Dupart Decl., ¶¶ 3-6.) Defendant counsel’s represents that if its
PMQ becomes available before the proposed date then it will provide this
information to Plaintiff. (Id.)
The Court
finds that the Motion to Compel Defendant’s PMQ is moot. Here, Defendant’s counsel had provided a
declaration signed under penalty of perjury representing that the earliest
available date for its PMQ is February 7, 2023.
The Court has no reason to believe that Defendant’s counsel has provided
false information. In addition,
Defendant has represented to Plaintiff’s counsel that if an earlier date
becomes available, then it will attempt to provide that date to Plaintiff. Thus,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s PMQ is MOOT.
Sanctions:
Plaintiff requests $2,825 (representing 7 hours of work at a rate of
$395/hour plus a $60 filing fee) in sanctions against Defendant. (Ullman Decl., ¶ 5.)
The Court
finds that sanctions against Defendant are proper. Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with
Defendant from May 31, 2022 to June 13, 2022, but Defendant failed to respond
to any of Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts.
(Ullman Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiff
filed this Motion on June 21, 2022, and Defendant did not provide a date for
its PMQ’s deposition until September 14, 2022.
(Dupart Exh. 1.) Here, the Motion
was necessary to have Defendant provide a date for its PMQ’s deposition and to
gain Defendant’s compliance with its discovery obligation. The Court finds that sanctions of $2,035
(representing 5 hours of work at a rate of $395/hour plus $60 filing fee) against
Defendant is a reasonable and appropriate amount.
Defendant is ordered to pay $2,035 in sanctions.
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Defendant’s PMQ is MOOT.
Defendant Party is ordered to pay $2,035 in sanctions because this
Motion was required to obtain Defendant’s compliance with its discovery
obligation.