Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This case arises from a car-pedestrian accident.  On March 16, 2021, Defendant Ismael Israel Sanchez was driving a commercial van when entering the crosswalk where Plaintiff Tara Steudemann was walking.  Plaintiff claims Sanchez hit and ran over her body twice.  Plaintiff claims she suffered severe injuries including patellar fracture, multiple ankle fractures, and severe fracture blisters.   

At the time of the collision, Defendant Geraldine Tapia was the registered owner of the van operated by Sanchez.  Plaintiff claims Tapia negligently entrusted the car to Sanchez who she knew or should have known was unfit to operate a commercial vehicle.  Plaintiff’s husband, Valentin Steudemann, has also filed a loss of consortium claim.   

At her deposition, Plaintiff testified she was a member of a gym called FulHaus.  She trained at FulHaus with Ronald Ming who she testified is a physical therapist, personal trainer and the owner of FulHaus.  Defendants noticed the deposition of Ming, to obtain a more thorough understanding of Plaintiff’s current condition.  Ming did not object to the subpoena, but he failed to appear for the deposition.   

This hearing is on Defendants’ motion to compel the deposition of Ronald Ming.  Defendants also seek sanctions in the amount of $1,337.50 against Ming.  There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

“Personal service of a¿deposition subpoena obligates any resident of California to appear, testify and produce whatever documents or things are specified in the subpoena; and to appear in any proceedings to enforce discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2020.220(c).)  A¿deposition subpoena may command either: (1) only the attendance and testimony of the deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2020.020.) 

A¿subpoena for a¿deposition of a non-party is enforceable by a¿motion to compel compliance brought pursuant to¿Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1.  This section provides that “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness …the court, upon motion reasonably made … or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order … directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1.) 

A¿motion to compel compliance with a¿deposition subpoena must be made within 60 days after completion of the deposition record, the date objections are served, or the date specified for production, and be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.480, subd., (b);¿Board of Registered Nursing v. Sup.Ct. (2021) 59 CA5th 1011, 1032-1033.) 

A “written notice and all moving papers supporting a¿motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346.) 

Further,¿Code Civ. Proc. section 1987.2(a)¿provides, in relevant part, that, in making an order on a motion to order compliance with a¿deposition subpoena, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification . …” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.2(a).) 

A nonparty deponent may be subject to monetary sanctions for disobeying a court order (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (k)) or for “flouting” the discovery process by suppressing or destroying evidence.  (Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 464, 476).  A nonparty may also be punished by contempt (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240) or payment of $500.00 (Code Civ. Proc., § 1992). 

TIMELINESS 

 

Defendants’ motion is timely.  Ming failed to appear for his noticed deposition on May 21, 2024.  Sixty days from May 21, 2024 is July 20, 2024.  Defendants filed their motion on June 7, 2024, well within the 60 day deadline. 

 

MEET AND CONFER 

 

Defendants’ motion is not supported by a meet and confer declaration.  Defense counsel attests he spoke with Mr. Ming a day prior to his deposition.  When told he had to appear at the deposition, Mr. Ming said he would not appear.  (Bell Dec. ¶ 8.)  There is no indication Defendants told Mr. Ming they intended to file a motion to compel and a request for sanctions or they met and conferred with Mr. Ming on the grounds for their motion.  Notwithstanding, the Court will consider the motion on its merits, but cautions counsel to comply with the statutory requirements.     

ANALYSIS 

 

 Defendants were required to personally serve their motion to compel on Mr. Ming.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.)  The proof of service to the motion to compel indicates it was served electronically on counsel for Plaintiffs.  There is no indication that Mr. Ming was served with the motion, much less that service was done personally.  Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to compel.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to compel the deposition of Ronald Ming.   

 

DATED:  July 11, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court