Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV08739, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 22STCV08739    Hearing Date: August 7, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Charles McMillan and Ocean Bay Property, LLC (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges ten causes of action arising from a landlord/tenant relationship.

On May 5, 2023, the Court issued an order continuing the trial start date from June 19, 2023 to November 27, 2023.  The Court’s May 5, 2023 order specified that discovery cut-off dates would not be extended to correspond with the new trial date.

On July 11, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition (the “Motion”).

DISCUSSION

            Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2025.450, 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, without having served a valid objection, 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.  (CCP § 2025.450, subd. (a).)  The motion must both: (1) set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice; and (2) include a meet and confer declaration pursuant to CCP section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.  (CCP § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1)-(2); see Leko v. Cornerstone Building Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1124 (the statute also applies when the deponent simply fails to appear).)

            Under CCP section 2024.020, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.  (CCP § 2024.020, subd. (a).)  On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.  (CCP § 2024.050, subd. (a).)  This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.  (Id.)

            Plaintiff’s opposition (the “Opposition”) does not dispute the facts laid forth in the Motion, but notes that the discovery deadline has passed.  The Court agrees that the Motion is not timely.  While Plaintiff intended to depose Plaintiff in May 2023, before the expiration of the discovery cutoff, the Motion was not filed until after the original trial start date and does not request leave to complete discovery.  Nor did Moving Defendants seek ex parte relief to have the Motion heard earlier. 

            Due to the Moving Defendants’ failure to comply with CCP sections 2024.020 and 2020.050, the Court DENIES the Motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

         Dated this 7th day of August 2023