Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01337, Date: 2024-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01337    Hearing Date: May 29, 2024    Dept: X

Tentative Ruling 

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X 

HEARING DATE:     May 29, 2024                                      TRIAL DATE: No date set.  

CASE:                         ANTHONY CHAN, et al. v. JIAKUN ZHAI, et al.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV01337 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF LE LE AYE (2713) 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ANTHONY CHAN (4929) 

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Jiakun Zhai and Zhao Juan Li (collectively “Defendants”)             

RESPONDING PARTY:     Plaintiffs Anthony Chan (“Chan”) and Le Le Aye (“Aye”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”)  

SERVICE:                              February 23, 2024  

OPPOSITION:                       May 14, 2024  

REPLY:                                   May 14, 2024  

RELIEF REQUESTED        

Defendants move for an order compelling the deposition of Plaintiff Aye and request monetary sanctions.  

Defendants move for an order compelling the deposition of Plaintiff Chan and request monetary sanctions.  

BACKGROUND 

On June 12, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants for motor vehicle and general negligence arising out of a multi-vehicle accident on September 9, 2022.  

On August 30, 2023, Defendants filed their Answer.  

On February 23, 2024, Defendants filed the instant two motions to compel the deposition of Plaintiffs, and request for sanctions. On May 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated opposition, which seeks sanctions against Defendants and their attorney of record. Defendants filed their reply on the same day.  

TENTATIVE RULING 

Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Le Le Aye (2713) is DENIED.  

Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Anthony Chan (4929) is DENIED.  

Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.  

Plaintiff’s request 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.¿ 

A motion to compel deposition shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (b).) The record is completed once the entire inspection at issue is finished, including the raising of objections during that process. (See, e.g., Unzipped, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at pp. 134-136.) The 60-day timeframe is jurisdictional and if it is not met, the court is in excess of its jurisdiction to act other than to deny the motion. (Id. at pp. 134-136; Weinstein v. Blumberg (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 316, 321-322 [the failure to serve a notice of motion and motion to compel without the supporting papers identified therein within the 60 days after the completion of the record rendered the motion untimely].)  

DISCUSSION 

Defendants provide that they scheduled the depositions of Plaintiffs for January 31, 2024. (Miller Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendants provide that Plaintiff’s counsel notified Defendants the day before the depositions were set to go forward that Plaintiffs would not appear at the depositions. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendants provide that despite attempts to meet and confer, Plaintiffs failed to appear at the depositions, causing defense counsel’s office to incur interpreter costs. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.)¿ 

¿ 

Here, while Defendants provide that Plaintiffs failed to appear at their deposition, Defendants submit a certified copy of the non-appearance as to Plaintiff Chan only. Defendant failed to submit the same as to Plaintiff Aye in the moving papers. Defendants acknowledge this failure in their reply brief and submit a certified copy of the non-appearance as to Plaintiff Aye. However, Defendants should have filed the motion with the supporting documents. Additionally, Defendants do not provide that they inquired about Plaintiffs’ nonappearance as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b). The declaration in support of each motion merely provides that Defendants met and conferred prior to Plaintiffs’ failure to appear.  

Defendants’ motions to compel deposition are denied, and the parties’ respective requests for sanctions are denied.  

CONCLUSION 

Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Le Le Aye (2713) is denied.  

Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Anthony Chan (4929) is denied.  

Defendants’ request for sanctions is denied.  

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.  

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   May 29, 2024                                                ___________________________________ 

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.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org