Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01195708, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Cross-Defendants John Belcher and Law Offices of John Belcher's unopposed motion to compel the deposition of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Michael Bakkers, is granted.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a) provides that when a party deponent is served with a deposition notice and, without having served a valid objection under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410, fails to appear for deposition the party giving notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony at deposition.  The motion must be accompanied by a declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 stating that the moving party contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)

Cross-Defendants' counsel emailed Defense counsel on January 25, 2023 to meet and confer regarding Bakkers’ deposition. After no response, Cross-Defendants noticed the deposition for February 15, 2023.  Bakkers served objections on February 8, 2023.  Cross-Defendants' counsel sent an email on February 13, 2023 proposing five new dates for the deposition.  Bakkers’ counsel stated April 5, 2023 would work for the deposition.  As a result, Cross-Defendants served a notice accordingly.  On April 4, 2023, Bakkers’ counsel (after receiving a confirmation email from Cross-Defendants' counsel regarding the deposition the next day) emailed objections to the deposition which purportedly were mailed on March 30, 2023.  The objections stated that counsel was unavailable because he was due for a trial. Cross-Defendants' counsel attempted to meet and confer suggesting that different counsel handle the deposition and stated that they planned to proceed with it. A notice of non-appearance was taken.  On April 11, 2023, Cross-Defendants again attempted to meet and confer regarding Bakkers’ deposition. However, counsel never confirmed a date that would work.  (Trimmer Decl., ¶¶ 14-33.)  With an impending discovery cut-off, Cross-Defendants filed the instant motion. 

Bakkers failed to interpose a timely objection to the amended deposition notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).)  No timely opposition to this motion was filed.  Cross-Defendants acted in good faith in attempting to schedule Bakkers’ deposition.  An order compelling the deposition is warranted.

Bakkers is ordered to appear for his deposition and to produce documents within 20 days of the notice of ruling, unless Cross-Defendants agree to a later date. 

Within 30 days of the notice of ruling, Michael Bakkers shall pay $1,060 to Klinedinst PC.

Cross-Defendants shall give notice of the ruling.