Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 23SMCV05451, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV05451 Hearing Date: April 10, 2025 Dept: O
Jennifer Akselrad v Tiziano Luglli Case no. 23SMCV05451
4-10-25 Akselrand Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Defendant Tizian Lugli.
Plaintiff Jennifer Falkoff Akselrad's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Defendant Tiziano Lugli and sanctions in the amount of $6,305 is GRANTED.
The motion was filed on 1-17-25. Defendant filed a late opposition on 4-2-25, and Plaintiff filed a reply on 4-3-25.
On 11-5-24 Defendant appeared for deposition accompanied by his counsel David Greene ("Greene"). (Coleman Decl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff declares that the deposition lasted for a few hours and Defendant provided incomplete and evasive responses with Defendant unilaterally terminating the Deposition despite Plaintiff's "contention that [he] had other questions for Defendant unrelated to Ms. Cesaro, her Declaration, or alleged illegal conduct at the Premises." (Id., ¶¶ 9–12, 15–16; Ex. 2, 4.)
A "deposition may be suspended if any party attending the deposition or the deponent demands the taking of testimony be suspended to enable that party or deponent to move for a protective order on the ground that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses that deponent or party.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1014–1015, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.)
Defendant’s counsel unilaterally terminated the deposition and did not pursue a protective order. Similarly, Defendant’s counsel did not respond to Plaintiff’s effort to meet and confer to resume the deposition. Under the facts of this case, Defendant’s counsel’s premature termination of the deposition without promptly seeking a protective order; and thereafter, ignoring Plaintiff’s counsel’s attempt to resolve the dispute without forcing Plaintiff to file a motion to compel is a misuse of the discovery process under CCP § 2023.010.
With its motion, Plaintiff filed a separate statement identifying 65 specific questions to which Plaintiff seeks a further response. Defendant did not file a response to that separate statement or address the specific questions identified in the separate statement in its opposition to the motion. Defendant’s conclusory arguments in its sparse opposition fails to show Defendant’s objections on relevance an/or privacy have merit. Therefore, Defendant’s objections to any of the 26 questions identified in the separate statement are overruled.
Similarly, Defendant has failed to show counsel’s instructions not to answer the questions was proper or that his premature termination of the deposition was proper. Defendant’s argument in its opposition that “Rather that continuing with questions related to the breach of the lease claim, Plaintiff’s counsel terminated the deposition” is false. Indeed, Defendant’s counsel’s (Mr. Green) stern colloquy at the end of the deposition belies such argument. (Plaintiff’s Compendium in Support of the Motion, ex 4. RT pg.145-146, (“Mr. Green: So Counsel, I’m going to make a motion to strike. I’m also going to suspend this deposition… I don’t care what your questions are…. I’m terminating this deposition because you are harassing my client.”)) In addition to ordering Defendant to answer the 26 questions identified in the separate statement, Plaintiff may continue to question Defendant regarding the other matters not already addressed until the deposition is completed.
Finally, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and his counsel under CCP§2023.010(f) is proper and justified, and the amount requested is reasonable.
The Court orders Defendant to appear for further deposition on _____________________, 2025. Defendant and counsel, Dignity Law Group, APC, are ordered to pay sanctions, jointly and severally, to Plaintiff in the amount of $6,305 (9.7/hrs. @ $650/hr.) within 60 days. Plaintiff is to submit the proposed order