Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

HOWARD BECK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

          vs.

UN TAEK JOO,

Defendant. Case No.: 21STCV34899

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT UN TAEK JOO FILED BY PLAINTIFFS HOWARD BECK AND JAE CHUNG KO

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Un Taek Joo is GRANTED.

Defendant Un Take Joo is ordered to appear for deposition within five days.

The parties are ordered to appear at the hearing to discuss the trial date.

Moving party to provide notice.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for conversion, breach of partnership agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, judicial dissolution of partnership, declaratory relief, constructive trust, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs allege that after the parties entered into a partnership to operate a sushi restaurant, Defendant embezzled partnership funds and thereafter changed the locks on the restaurant to prevent Plaintiffs from accessing it.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 22, 2021, Plaintiffs Howard Beck and Jae Chung Ko filed their Complaint against Defendant Un Taek Joo.

On February 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint. 

On April 7, 2022, Defendant Answered and filed a Cross-Complaint.

On February 21, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion to compel Defendant’s deposition. The motion is unopposed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move to compel the deposition of Defendant Un Taek Joo.

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Attendance

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A party desiring to take an oral deposition shall give a notice in writing which states the specification of reasonably particularly of any materials to be produced by the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.220, subd. (a)(4).) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) A party served with a deposition notice waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).) 

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action … without having served a valid objection … fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, … 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 … described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)  

Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel testifies that Defendant appeared virtually for two depositions but failed to produce the documents requested. (Waecker Decl., ¶3.) Although Defendant informed Plaintiffs’ counsel he was too ill to appear for deposition, Defendant has not opposed this motion. (Id., ¶4.)

Defendant is a party to this action, failed to proceed with his properly noticed deposition, and failed to produce the documents requested in the deposition notice. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted. Plaintiffs do not seek sanctions at this time.

DATED:  March 22, 2024

______________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court