Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV07843, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV07843 Hearing Date: April 19, 2023 Dept: 68
Jon-Paul Chevalier vs. Walker Patterson Inman III., Case
No. 21STCV07843
Motion to Compel Deposition and Production of Documents
Moving Party – Plaintiff Jon-Paul Chevalier
Responding Party – Defendant Walker Patterson Inman III
Moving Party’s Position
Plaintiff filed this motion to
compel deposition because Defendant said that he would be unable to appear at
the deposition originally scheduled for December 19, 2022, but failed to serve an
objection to the original Notice of Deposition. Defendant then later served an
objection to Plaintiff’s Notice of Continuance of Deposition for the deposition
that was scheduled for February 9, 2023. When Plaintiff’s counsel emailed
Defendant’s counsel requesting alternative dates, Defendant’s counsel did not
respond.
Plaintiff
also seeks to compel Defendant to produce the requested documents at the
deposition. Lastly, Plaintiff is seeking sanctions against Defendant and
Defendant’s counsel of record in the amount of $4,085.00.
Defendant’s Opposition
Defendant’s main reasons for
objecting to the motion are that Defendant is willing to appear for the
deposition and that Defendant’s counsel are intending to withdraw from their
representation of Defendant. Defendant also objects to the request for
production of documents.
Plaintiff’s Reply
Plaintiff
argues in his reply that Defendant’s reasons for opposing the motion are not
adequate. Plaintiff adequately cited the code sections allowing him to file the
motion to compel. Further, Plaintiff argues that no subpoena is required to
compel a party to produce documents at deposition as long as the deposition
notice specified what documents the other party should produce. Finally,
Plaintiff argues that the Court must impose monetary sanctions.
Analysis
I.
Motion to Compel Deposition
CCP § 2025.450(a) reads in relevant
part:
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, 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.
Defendant
failed to properly object to the original Notice of Deposition. Upon Plaintiff
serving a Notice of Continuance of Deposition, Defendant then served
objections. However, this does not excuse Defendant’s failure to properly
object to the original Notice of Deposition.
Accordingly, based on CCP §
2025.450(a) Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition and production of documents
is GRANTED.
II.
Sanctions
CCP § 2025.450(g)(1) requires that
the Court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed
the deposition and against the deponent.
Plaintiff has requested sanctions
in the amount of $4,085.00 against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel.
Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing rate is $350.00 an hour. Plaintiff’s counsel
spent 7.5 hours researching and preparing the motion ($2,625.00); anticipates
spending 3 hours reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply ($1,050.00);
1 hour to appear at the hearing ($350.00); and filing fees in the amount of
$60.00. (Isaacs Decl., ¶ 8.)
The amount of time appears
excessive. The Court awards $2,500 as
sanctions against both Plaintiff and his counsel.
Order
1. Plaintiff’s
motion to compel deposition and production of documents is GRANTED.
2. The
Court will discuss dates for deposition at the hearing and will issue an order
with the selected date.
3. Defendant
Walter Patterson Inman, III and Defendant’s counsel Doron F. Eghbali, Esq. are
ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $2,500.00.
4. The
sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of the date of this order.