Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV01819, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01819    Hearing Date: February 28, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Swayze v. Daniells, Case No. 22SMCV01819

Hearing Date February 28, 2024

Defendant Daniells’ Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff and for Sanctions

In this auto accident case defendant seeks to depose plaintiff. Defendant moved the deposition once. Plaintiff then postponed twice, once due to COVID and once due to childcare issues. The parties had an IDC, at which they agreed to take the depo December 19, 2023. That day, plaintiff appeared remotely via cell phone camera. Defendant’s counsel refused to proceed; the notice specified appearance via laptop or desktop computer. See Morovati decl., Exhibit G, H “[t]he use of a smartphone to conduct the deposition is not permitted.” Defendant moves to compel Swayze’s deposition and seeks sanctions.

Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.450(a) states if a party fails to appear for a noticed deposition without serving valid objections, the serving party can move to compel the deponent’s attendance and testimony.

Swayze appeared for deposition on December 19. Daniells does not explain why her use of a cell phone made it impossible to conduct the deposition. There is no bad faith; plaintiff postponed twice, then appeared via cell phone. Defendant postponed once.

The motion is DENIED. The parties are to present the court with an agreed-upon date for the deposition to proceed within 30 days at the hearing of this motion.