Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This is a slip and fall case.  Plaintiff Debra Vaughn claims she slipped and fell on what appeared to be melted ice cream outside a Safeway store.  Plaintiff claims she suffered serious injuries as a result of the accident.   

On November 21, 2024, Defendants served Plaintiff, through her then attorney of record, with a Notice of Taking Deposition. Defendants tried to obtain dates for the deposition for months with no cooperation from Plaintiff or her former counsel.  Defendants advised Plaintiff’s former counsel that they would no longer agree to continue the deposition to a future date as trial was fast approaching. Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for December 10, 2024.  Plaintiff failed to appear, but her former counsel did and advised that there had been a breakdown of communication and Plaintiff had fired his office.  

Since that time, Plaintiff’s former counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw which was granted by this Court.  Plaintiff is currently representing herself in pro per.  

On February 5, 2025, Defendants served Plaintiff with a Notice of Taking Deposition, scheduled for February 27, 2025. The day before the deposition, on February 26, 2025, Plaintiff called counsel for Defendants and advised she was not able to appear for her deposition because she had a doctor’s appointment.   

Defense counsel asked Plaintiff to provide alternative dates for her deposition. Plaintiff stated that she was in the process of hiring new counsel and promised that either she or her new counsel would contact defense counsel within two weeks with alternative dates for her deposition.  

Despite Plaintiff’s promises, Plaintiff has refused to communicate with defense counsel and failed to provide a new date for her deposition.  Defense counsel reached out to Plaintiff one last time on March 14, 2025, in the hopes of avoiding this motion, but received no response from Plaintiff.   

Defendants now move to compel the deposition of Plaintiff.  Defendants also seek sanctions in the amount of $925, in the event they prevail on their motion.  There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.     

LEGAL STANDARD 

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)  A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) 

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party … fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document … described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production … of any document … described in the deposition notice.”  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)  The motion must set forth facts showing good cause justifying the demand for any documents and must include a meet and confer declaration.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1),¿(b)(2).)   

MEET AND CONFER 

Defendants submit the Declaration of Jane Carey in support of their meet and confer requirements.  The declaration attests that Defendants reached out to Plaintiff to discuss scheduling her deposition after Plaintiff asked to reschedule, but Plaintiff refused to respond to their communications.  (Carey Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.)  The Court concludes Defendants have met their obligations to meet and confer.     

DISCUSSION 

 There can be no serious dispute that Defendants have good cause to depose Plaintiff in a slip and fall case where Plaintiff is claiming personal injuries.  Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to compel. 

Further, because Defendants prevailed on their motion, the Court must award sanctions unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  Here, the Court finds neither ground exists, for denying sanctions, particularly in the face of Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion. 

In awarding sanctions, the Court starts with the lodestar which is the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the reasonable time spent.  Defense counsel bills at an hourly rate of $190.  She was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1988.  The Court concludes her rate is reasonable for a lawyer of her tenure in the prevailing legal market in Los Angeles. 

Defense counsel attests she will spend four hours on this motion, including drafting the initial motion, traveling to the hearing, and appearing at the hearing.  The Court concludes these hours are reasonable.   

Defendants also seek costs of $165 which includes a filing fee of $60 and the court reporter’s appearance fee of $105.  The Court concludes these costs are also reasonable.  

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and for sanctions in the amount of $925 to be paid within 30 days.   

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: April 15, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.