Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00949, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling
REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT PER CRC 3.1308
The Court will attempt to post all Tentative Rulings at least the day prior to the hearing by 3:00 p.m.; however, the Court does not post Tentative Rulings for all matters.
The Court will indicate in the Tentative Ruling whether the Court is requesting oral argument. For cases where the Court is not requesting argument, then the Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) where the Court requests notice of intent to appear. Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, a party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.
Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.
Notice of the ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative. Remote appearances are permitted for all law and motion unless otherwise indicated by the Court.
Case Number: 22BBCV00949 Hearing Date: January 10, 2025 Dept: A
MOTION TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION
Los Angeles Superior Court
Case # 22BBCV00949
|
MP: |
Ford Motor Company (Defendant) |
|
RP: |
Gabriel Reuven (Plaintiff) |
The Court is not
requesting oral argument on this matter. The Court is guided by
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear
is requested. Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling,
no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify all other
parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the
party’s intention to appear and argue. The tentative ruling will become
the ruling of the court if no argument is received.
Notice may be given
either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.
ALLEGATIONS:
Plaintiff Gabriel
Reuven (Plaintiff) brings this action against Ford Motor Company (Ford) for
Ford’s alleged violation of the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff alleges that his
2019 Ford Expedition (the “Subject Vehicle”) was manufactured as defective.
Ford now moves to
compel Plaintiff’s deposition pursuant to C.C.P. § 2025.240. Plaintiff opposes
the motion.
ANALYSIS:
I.
LEGAL
STANDARD
“If, after service of a deposition
notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or
employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party
under Section 2025.230, 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.” (C.C.P. § 2025.450(a).)
II.
MERITS
Timeline
On April 4, 2024, Ford served a
deposition notice for Plaintiff to appear on May 22, 2024. (Scott Decl.
¶ 3, Exh. A.) On April 30, 2024, Ford attempted to meet and confer
regarding the deposition via email to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Scott Decl.
¶ 4, Exh. B.) On May 7, 2024, Ford again attempted to meet and confer to
confirm the May 22, 2024, deposition date, requesting alternative dates if
Plaintiff and/or counsel were unavailable for the deposition on the date
noticed. (Scott Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. C.) On May 8, 2024, Ford followed up again
regarding the May 22, 2024 deposition, requesting alternative dates if
Plaintiff and/or counsel were unavailable for the deposition on the date
noticed. (Scott Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. D.)
On May 16, 2024, Plaintiff served an
objection on the basis the deposition was unilaterally noticed, and counsel was
unavailable. (Scott Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. E.) On the same day, Ford served an
amended deposition notice for Plaintiff to appear on June 18, 2024. (Scott
Decl. 7, Exh. F.) On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff served an objection on the basis
the deposition was unilaterally noticed, and counsel was unavailable. (Scott
Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. H.) On October 2, 2024, Ford attempted to meet and confer
with Plaintiff’s counsel in order to obtain a date for the deposition. (Scott
Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. I.)
On October 18, 2024, Ford served a
second amended deposition notice for Plaintiff to appear on November 4, 2024.
(Scott Decl. ¶ 10.) On November 1, 2024, Plaintiff served an objection on
the basis the deposition was unilaterally noticed, and counsel was unavailable.
(Scott Decl., Exh. M.) On November 4, 2024, Ford attempted to meet and confer
with Plaintiff’s counsel to obtain a date for the deposition but received no
response. (Scott Decl. ¶ 12, Exh. M.) On November 18, 2024, Ford filed the
instant motion. It appears the motion was served on Plaintiff’s counsel via
electronic service that same day. (See Mot. p. 9.)
Plaintiff states that he and his counsel
only discovered Ford had filed this motion on December 24, 2024, upon discovery
of the motion hearing. (Sanaia Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff thereafter offered
January 15, 2024 as available for his deposition and Ford confirmed the
deposition would move forward on that date. (Sanaia Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Exh. 2.)
Plaintiff requested that Ford take the motion off calendar, but Ford declined.
(Id.) Ford also declined Plaintiff’s request to continue the motion
pending Plaintiff’s deposition, on grounds that the next available reservation
date in March 2025 was too far out. (Id.) The Court notes that jury
trial in this matter is slated for April 7, 2025, having been previously
continued by stipulation.
Discussion
The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument
that the instant motion is moot to be unpersuasive. Although Plaintiff has now
offered alternative dates for the deposition, Ford is without a guarantee that
the deposition occurs on that date. This
is especially true if Plaintiff failed to provide alternative dates since the
original April 2024 deposition notice.
Plaintiff’s counsel consistently and repeatedly failed to go forward
with the deposition, and based the failure in part on an invalid
objection.
As preliminary matter, the Court notes
that objection on grounds that a deposition was unilaterally noticed, or that a
party is unavailable, is not a valid objection for purposes of C.C.P. § 2025.410.
Were an objection based on alleged unavailability, coupled with a failure to timely
provide available dates deemed a valid objection, then depositions would never
happen. In this instance, there has been
a delay of approximately eight months from the initial attempt by Ford to
depose Plaintiff. Though it may be a
professional courtesy to mutually schedule a deposition, the Civil Discovery
Act does not require it. “The service of a deposition notice under Section
2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action… to
attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically
stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (C.C.P. §
2025.280(a).) The party serving the notice of deposition can choose the date so
long as it complies with these requirements and Ford did so here.
Here, Plaintiff’s objections to each of
the noticed depositions are invalid because they present no objection based on
failure to comply with Article 2. Plaintiff’s objections are all based purely
on unilateral notice and unavailability. There is no appellate nor statutory
authority for this objection, especially when it is not accompanied by
alternative dates. These concerns are
generally resolved via meet and confer efforts. The Court finds that Ford
attempted to do so here, but that Plaintiff’s continual delay frustrated Ford’s
efforts such that a motion to compel became necessary.
Plaintiff, when bringing a lawsuit, must
understand the concomitant discovery responsibilities and obligations. If they
are unwilling to assent to these, then perhaps a lawsuit is not ultimately in
Plaintiff’s best interest. "[P]retrial
discovery promotes the 'historically important state interest of facilitating
the ascertainment of truth....'" (Davies v. Superior Court (1984)
36 Cal.3d 291) "The policy of the state is that the parties to a lawsuit
'shall cooperate.' Period. Full stop." (Lasalle v. Vogel (2019) 36
Cal.App.5th 127, 130).
Plaintiff’s argument that Ford did not
attempt to meet and confer is unpersuasive. Ford’s meet and confer attempts are
well documented in their moving papers. Ford attempted to meet and confer
regarding alternative dates on April 30, May 7, May 8, October 2, and November
4. (Scott Decl. Exhs. B, C, D, I, & M.) It does not appear that Plaintiff’s
counsel responded to any of those efforts. The Court also does not agree that
Ford’s refusal to withdraw or continue this motion indicates a lack of good
faith meet and confer. Plaintiff has failed to appear for three noticed
depositions and has refused to provide alternatives for the greater part of a
year. Ford cannot be expected to meet and confer ad nauseum in the hopes that
Plaintiff will eventually respond.
Plaintiff’s argument that no
nonappearance was taken is also unpersuasive. C.C.P. § 2025.450 only requires
that the party to be deposed failed to appear. The declaration of Ford’s
counsel is sufficient to establish that Plaintiff did not appear for any of the
noticed depositions.
The facts here are clear. Ford appropriately
noticed Plaintiff’s deposition several times and Plaintiff failed to appear.
The Court finds that Ford attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff as to
alternative deposition dates, but those attempts fell upon deaf ears.
Accordingly, Ford’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s deposition shall occur no
later than January 15, 2024, that date already mutually agreed upon.
Sanctions
“If a motion under subdivision (a) is
granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing
with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and
against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless
the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial
justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction
unjust.” (C.C.P. § 2025.450.)
Here, the Court finds Plaintiff was
without substantial justification in opposing the motion. Plaintiff’s continuous
refusal to appear for noticed depositions necessitated the filing of this
motion. Accordingly, the Court awards $560 in sanctions as against Plaintiff
and Plaintiff’s counsel jointly and severally. (Scott Decl. ¶ 15.)
Further failures to comply may result in
evidentiary and/or issue sanctions.
---
RULING:
In the
event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed
order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the
following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and
entered into the court’s records.
ORDER
Ford Motor
Company’s Motion to Compel Deposition came on regularly for hearing on January 10, 2025, with
appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the
court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as
follows:
THE
MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION IS GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF’S
DEPOSITION SHALL OCCUR NO LATER THAN JANUARY 15, 2024.
ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE RE: PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION IS SET FOR JANUARY 17, 2025 AT 10:00
AM. IF THE DEPOSITION HAS OCCURRED
DEFENDANT MAY TAKE THE MATTER OFF CALENDAR AND NOTIFY PLAINTIFF.
SANCTIONS
ARE GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $560 AS
AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY.
SANCTIONS TO BE
PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.
FORD TO
GIVE NOTICE.
IT IS SO
ORDERED.
DATE:
January 10, 2025 _______________________________
F.M.
TAVELMAN, Judge
Superior Court of California
County of
Los Angeles