Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 19STCV11399, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV11399    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     September 7, 2022                              TRIAL DATE:  April 25, 2023

CASE:                         SHIN P. YANG, ESQ., individually; SHIN P. YANG, ESQ. dba LAW OFFICES OF SHIN P. YANG v. KAZN AM 1300, a business entity of unknown form; MULTICULTURAL RADIO BROADCASTING, INC., a foreign corporation; MULTICULTURAL RADIO BROADCASTING LICENSEE, LLC, a foreign limited liability corporation; ARTHUR LIU, an individual and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 19STCV11399

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

MOVING PARTY:              Plaintiff Shin P. Yang, esq. (“Plaintiff’)

RESPONDING PARTY:     No response filed.

SERVICE:                             Filed August 16, 2022

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling the deposition testimony of witnesses of KAZN AM 1300, including KAZN’s custodian of records, Felix Guo, Yvonne Liu, Lie Jin, Sean Kim, Young C. Kim, Arthur Shu Liu, and KAZN’s personal most knowledgeable.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiff Shin P. Yang’s (“Plaintiff”) that Defendants KAZN AM 1300 (“KAZN”), Multicultural Radio Broadcasting, Inc, Multicultral Radio Broadcasting Licensee, LLC, and Arthur Liu (“Liu”) (collectively “Defendants”) reneged on an agreement to advertise his legal services on air.

            Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on August 23, 2019, alleging six causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) negligent interference with prospective economic relations, (4) intentional interference with prospective economic relations, (5) inducing breach of contract, and (6) intentional interference with contractual relations.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions is DENIED.

            Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a), provides: “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.”

            Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 subdivision (b) requires that any motion under subdivision (a) set forth specific facts showing good cause and a meet and confer declaration or, when a deponent fails to attend the deposition, a declaration stating the moving party contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff provides that on November 4, 2021, March 7, 2022, and June 22, 2022, he served a notice of taking the deposition of employees and witnesses of KAZN. (Pierry Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiff provides that KAZN’s counsel provided that the witnesses were unavailable during the noticed dates. (Id. ¶ 5.)

            However, in a subsequent ex parte application, Plaintiff provides that after he filed the present motion, the parties were able to agree to conduct the deposition of the defense witnesses during the week of November 7, 2022. (Pierry Ex Parte Application Decl. ¶ 5.)

            Based on Plaintiff’s representation that the deposition are currently scheduled for a date mutually agreed upon by the parties, the present motion is denied as moot. However, in the case that KAZN’s witnesses or counsel fail to proceed with the November 2022 depositions, Plaintiff may file a subsequent motion to compel depositions.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions is denied.

            Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions is denied.

Dated:   September 7, 2022                            ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org