Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01854, Date: 2024-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01854    Hearing Date: November 1, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

NOTICE:

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 requested 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: 

Drequinn Johnson (Plaintiff) brings this action against Brian Christopher Williams (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges that he was injured when Defendant’s vehicle collided with his own on the 101 Freeway.

Before the Court is a motion by Defendant to compel Plaintiff’s deposition pursuant to C.C.P. § 2025.450. Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to this motion. The Court notes that, pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 8.54(c), a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to its being granted. 

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

A motion made pursuant to C.C.P. § 2025.450 The motion shall include “a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (C.C.P. § 2025.450(b)(2).)

Here, the Court finds that Defendant has not satisfied the meet and confer requirements. Defendant’s motion includes a declaration from his counsel attesting to two attempts to take Plaintiff’s deposition. On July 16, 2024, Defendant’s counsel served notice of deposition on Plaintiff via email. (Chowdry Decl. Exh. A.) Although Defendant states that Plaintiff never appeared for this deposition, the declaration is silent as to any attempt to contact Plaintiff and inquire as to the reason for nonappearance. (Chowdry Decl. ¶ 3.) On August 1, 2024, Defendant again noticed Plaintiff’s deposition, this time via email and U.S. mail. (Chowdry Decl. Exh. C.) Defendant again states that Plaintiff did not appear for this deposition but makes no representations about any attempt to contact Plaintiff regarding the nonappearance. (Chowdry Decl ¶ 5.)

The Court’s concern regarding the meet and confer efforts is made greater by virtue of the fact that Plaintiff is self-represented in this matter. On June 21, 2024, the Court granted a motion to be relieved as filed by Plaintiff’s counsel. Since that time Defendant appears to have been diligently serving the deposition notices on both Plaintiff and his former counsel. Regardless, the statute is clear that Defendant is required to make an effort to informally inquire about the nonappearance prior to bringing this motion. The Court does not construe re-noticing Plaintiff’s deposition after the first nonappearance as fulfilling that purpose.

As such, the motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is DENIED without prejudice. Should Defendant attempt to contact Plaintiff regarding the nonappearance and be unsuccessful, the Court invites him to refile the motion.

--- 

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 

Brian Christopher Williams’s Motion to Compel Deposition came on regularly for hearing on November 1, 2024, 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 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  

DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  November 1, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles