Judge: Dennis J. Keough, Case: 2021-01180937, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling
1) Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)
2) Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)
Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Ok H. Hu
Defendants Marns Trucking LLC and Roman Ortega’s unopposed Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff Ok H. Hu is GRANTED.
Code of Civil Procedure §2025.010 provides as follows: “Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.” C.C.P. § 2025.010.
If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under section 2025.230 , 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, 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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a).
Here, on 12-7-22, Defendants served Plaintiff O. Hu with a Notice of Deposition. (Cothran Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Pursuant to the deposition notice, O. Hu was to appear at her deposition on 12-22-22 at 10:00 a.m. via Zoom remote video conference. (Id.)
Plaintiff O. Hu did not object to the Notice of Deposition. (Cothran Decl., ¶ 5). Around the time of the deposition, defense counsel contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel via email and asked about Plaintiffs attendance at deposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded that he had informed his clients of the deposition, but due to ongoing communication issues he had no further knowledge of their attendance. (Cothran Decl., ¶ 6.)
On 12-22-22, Plaintiff O. Hu failed to appear for her deposition and a Certificate of Non-Appearance was taken. (Cothran Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. B.)
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion. Plaintiff is to provide a firm date for his deposition within 15 days of this hearing.
FURTHER, the Court awards Defendants sanctions in the amount of $872.31 and against Plaintiff O. Hu for failure to appear at her deposition.
The Court shall impose a monetary sanction against any person who abuses or misuses the discovery process, as Plaintiff has in this case. (Code Civ. Proc. §§2023.010, et seq., 2025.450(g)(1), and 2025.480(j).)
The Court awards Defendants $230 in attorneys’ fees; $60 is filing fees; and $582.31 in court reporter costs.
Moving party to give notice.
Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Gong S. Hu
Defendants Marns Trucking LLC and Roman Ortega’s unopposed Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff Gong S. Hu is GRANTED.
Code of Civil Procedure §2025.010 provides as follows: “Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.” C.C.P. § 2025.010.
If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under section 2025.230 , 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, 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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a).
Here, on 12-7-22, Defendants served Plaintiff G. Hu with a Notice of Deposition. (Cothran Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Pursuant to the deposition notice, G. Hu was to appear at his deposition on 12-21-22 at 10:00 a.m. via Zoom remote video conference. (Id.)
Plaintiff G. Hu did not object to the Notice of Deposition. (Cothran Decl., ¶ 5). Around the time of the deposition, defense counsel contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel via email and asked about Plaintiffs attendance at deposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded that he had informed his clients of the deposition, but due to ongoing communication issues he had no further knowledge of their attendance. (Cothran Decl., ¶ 6.)
On 12-21-22, Plaintiff G. Hu failed to appear for his deposition and a Certificate of Non-Appearance was taken. (Cothran Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. B.)
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion. Plaintiff is to provide a firm date for his deposition within 15 days of this hearing.
FURTHER, the Court awards Defendants sanctions in the amount of $2,054.81 and against Plaintiff G. Hu for failure to appear at his deposition.
The Court shall impose a monetary sanction against any person who abuses or misuses the discovery process, as Plaintiff has in this case. (Code Civ. Proc. §§2023.010, et seq., 2025.450(g)(1), and 2025.480(j).)
The Court awards Defendants $690 in attorneys’ fees; $60 is filing fees; $582.31 in court reporter costs; and $722.50 in interpreter costs.
Moving party to give notice.