Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV06106, Date: 2023-12-12 Tentative Ruling

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

On December 15, 2020, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $40,678.70.

On October 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce a deposition subpoena that was served on Defendant (the “Motion”).

Under 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).)

On January 6, 2023, Defendant was served with a subpoena (the “Subpoena”). (Declaration of Edward C. Tu (“Tu Decl.”) ¶ 8.) On August 24, 2023, the Court ordered Defendant to produce documents in compliance with the Subpoena by September 15, 2023. (Tu Decl. ¶ 18.) As of the filing of the Motion, Defendant had not produced any responses or documents. (Tu Decl. ¶ 19.)

As it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Defendant is ordered to comply with the Subpoena within 20 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $3,661.65 in connection with the Motion. (Tu Decl. ¶ 22.) This amount represents: (1) five hours preparing the moving papers at a rate of $450 per hour; (2) an anticipated three hours to prepare reply papers and attend the hearing; and (3) filing costs in the amount of $61.65. (See Tu Decl. ¶¶ 20-22.)

The Court exercises its discretion and grants Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $2,311.65, which represents five hours preparing the moving papers at a rate of $450 per hour and $61.65 in filing fees. (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.) Defendant is ordered to pay this amount within 20 days of the date of this order.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court