Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV02255, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02255    Hearing Date: July 16, 2024    Dept: X

Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      July 16, 2024                                      TRIAL DATE: March 11, 2025

CASE:                         HETHER FLORES v. TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, B-K LA CANADA PROPERTY, LLC; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV02255

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Hether Flores

RESPONDING PARTY:      None

SERVICE:                              Filed May 23, 2024.

OPPOSITION:                       None.

REPLY:                                   None.

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant B-K La Canada Property, LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable to appear for a deposition and produce documents requested within ten days of the Court’s order.  Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,802.50.

BACKGROUND

            On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff Hether Flores filed an action for (1) negligence (premises liability) and (2) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision against Defendants Trader Joe’s Company (“Trader Joe’s”) and B-K La Canada Property, LLC (“B-K”).  Plaintiff alleges that on September 26, 2022, she was visiting the Trader Joe’s grocery store located in La Canada when she stepped onto what appeared a water meter and fell through it, sustaining injuries.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Hether Flores’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant B-K La Canada Property, LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED.  Defendant B-K is ordered to appear at a properly noticed deposition and produce the documents requested, within ten (10) days of the Court’s Order.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,802.50 is also GRANTED, to be paid by Defendant B-K La Canada Property, LLC, within thirty (30) days of the Court’s order.

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.”

            The motion shall “(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) be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(b)(2).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant B-K’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) to appear for deposition and produce the documents requested within ten days of the Court’s order.

            Plaintiff’s counsel, Amber Esposito, indicates that on February 5, 2024, Plaintiff served a notice of deposition on Defendant B-K.  (Esposito Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)  On February 28, 2024, defense counsel requested a new deposition date via email.  (Ibid. at ¶ 3, Ex. B.)  Esposito requested dates multiple times and rescheduled the deposition to May 7, 2024.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4, Ex. C.)  On May 6, 2024, defense counsel sent an email to Esposito stating that he had a medical procedure and would not be producing the witness at the deposition.  (Ibid. at ¶ 6, Ex. E.)  Defendant has not served any objections to the Notices.  (Ibid. at ¶ 7.)  On May 10 and 16, 2024, Esposito attempted to meet and confer with defense counsel to obtain a new date for the deposition.  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 8-9, Exs. F-G.)

            Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,802.50 as follows: 3.1 hours preparing the instant Motion and one hour to attend the hearing, at a billing rate of $425 per hour, plus $60 in filing fees.

Plaintiff has submitted evidence that she served deposition notices on Defendant.  Defendant did not serve valid objections or appear at the noticed depositions.  Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to discuss mutually convenient deposition dates on several occasions prior to filing the instant Motion.  Defendant has not opposed the Motion. The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a).  Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.

            Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.  A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.010, subdivision (d).)  In addition, a court shall impose monetary sanctions if a motion to compel a deposition is granted unless “the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code. Civ. Proc. section 2025.450, subdivision (g)(1).)

            Given that the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court may also impose monetary sanctions.  The Court finds sanctions in the amount of $1,802.50 to be appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Hether Flores’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant B-K La Canada Property, LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED.  Defendant B-K is ordered to appear at a properly noticed deposition and produce the documents requested, within ten (10) days of the Court’s Order.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,802.50 is also GRANTED, to be paid by Defendant B-K La Canada Property, LLC, within thirty (30) days of the Court’s order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   July 16, 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