Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STLC08467, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC08467    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 68

            This is a case in which Plaintiff is alleging that Defendant’s property did not have sufficient disability accommodations. In his responses to Defendant’s special interrogatories, Plaintiff indicated that his brother, Guy Shayler, witnessed the events at Defendant’s property. Defendant served a deposition subpoena on Guy Shayler with an order for him to appear for deposition on September 30, 2022. He did not appear, and Defendant’s subsequent attempts to get in contact with him have failed. Defendant then filed this motion for an order compelling Guy Shayler’s attendance at deposition on January 4, 2023, at the Law Offices of Baraban & Teske located at 215 N. Marengo Ave, 3rd Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101.

            Code of Civil Procedure § 2020.220 provides in relevant part that the Court has jurisdiction over a witness served with a subpoena who refuses to appear: “(c) Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require all of the following of any deponent who is a resident of California at the time of service:… (3) The deponent’s attendance at a court session to consider any issue arising out of the deponent’s refusal to be sworn, or to answer any question, or to produce specified items, or to permit inspection or photocopying, if the subpoena so specifies, or specified testing and sampling of the items produced.”

            Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.480(a) provides in relevant part: “If a deponent fails to answer any question …, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer…” Further, “A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena in any manner described in subdivision (c) of Section 2020.220 may be punished for contempt under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) without the necessity of a prior order of court directing compliance by the witness.” (CCP § 2020.240.)

            Defendant has indicated that it does not seek contempt against Guy Shayler. However, Defendant desires to compel Guy Shayler’s attendance at deposition because if he did witness the events at Defendant’s property, as Plaintiff has claimed, then he would have relevant information to the issues in the case. This Court has jurisdiction over Guy Shayler pursuant to CCP § 2020.220, and Defendant has properly moved for an order compelling his attendance at deposition.

            Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel attendance at deposition is GRANTED.

            Defendant’s motion to compel attendance at deposition is granted, and Guy Shayler is ordered to appear for deposition on January 4, 2023, at the Law Offices of Baraban & Teske located at 215 N. Marengo Ave, 3rd Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101.