Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00136, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00136    Hearing Date: November 17, 2023    Dept: A

23LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies 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 notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ANALYSIS:

Dvin Amirian (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Natalia Jojette Locicero (“Defendant”) in connection with an alleged motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently operated her vehicle such that it crossed over into Plaintiff’s lane and struck his vehicle. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff’s Complaint states a singular cause of action for General Negligence.

Before the Court is a motion brought by Defendant to compel the deposition of Dr. Jonathan Eskenazi, M.D. (“Eskenazi”). No opposition to the motion was filed.

“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).)

Here, Defendant’s counsel states he had been in communication with Plaintiff’s counsel and Evelyn Guiterrez (“Guiterrez”), who is stated to be the Personal Injury Department Manager for TIB Specialists. (Park Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.) Defendant does not explain who TIB Specialists is, however, the Court presumes they are a practice affiliated with Eskenazi.  Guiterrez provided the date of August 14, 2023 as available for the virtual deposition of Eskenazi. (Parker Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant’s counsel states they noticed the deposition of Eskenazi on July 28, 2023, to be held on August 14, 2023. (Parker Decl. ¶ 5.) Eskenazi did not appear on the noticed deposition date, despite Guiterrez confirming receipt of the link for the deposition. (Parker Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.) Defendant’s counsel has attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel to reschedule the deposition, but Plaintiff’s counsel has been non-responsive. (Parker Decl. ¶ 9.)

Defendant demonstrates that Eskenazi failed to proceed with the duly noticed deposition and that she attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the nonappearance. (C.C.P. § 2024.450(a), (b)(2).) Accordingly, Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel the deposition of Dr. Jonathan Eskenazi, M.D. is GRANTED.

If a motion to compel deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction 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(g)(1).)

Defendant’s counsel states their office has expended 3.3 hours preparing this motion at the hourly rate of $160. Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $528. The estimated time in reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply is inapplicable as the motion is unopposed. Sanctions are awarded jointly and severally against Eskenazi and Plaintiff’s counsel.  

--- 

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 

Natalia Jojette Locicero’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Jonathan Eskenazi, M.D. came on regularly for hearing on November 17, 2023, 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 THE DEPOSITION OF DR. JONATHAN ESKENAZI, M.D. IS GRANTED. 

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED IN THE AMOUNT OF $528 AS AGAINST DR. JONATHAN ESKENAZI, M.D., AND COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY.  SANCTIONS SHALL BE PAID TO DEFENDANT LOCICERO.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  November 17, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles