Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV05256, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24NNCV05256 Hearing Date: June 6, 2025 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
arsen
aleksanyan, Plaintiff, v. brian r.
figueroa,
et seq. Defendants. |
Case No.: 24NNCV05256 Hearing Date: June 6, 2025 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: motion to compel the deposition of plaintiff and request for
sanctions |
BACKGROUND
A.
Allegations
Plaintiff Arsen Aleksanyan (“Plaintiff”) alleges
that on February 28, 2024, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident with
Defendant driver Brian R. Figueroa (“Mr. Figueroa”) and Defendant San Gabriel
Transit, Inc. (“SGT”), who was the owner of the vehicle driven by Mr. Figueroa. Plaintiff alleges that the incident occurred
at SR-134 E/B in the right lane in Pasadena.
The complaint, filed October 22, 2024, alleges
a single cause of action for motor vehicle.
B.
Motion on Calendar
On April 7, 2025, Defendants SGT and
Mr. Figueroa filed a motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff.
On May 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed an
opposition brief.
On May 30, 2025, Defendants filed a
reply brief.
DISCUSSION
Defendants move to compel the
deposition of Plaintiff.
Defendants argue that on November
25, 2024, they noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for February 5, 2025, but
Plaintiff served an objection that he lived in San Diego. (Cheung Decl., Exs. 1-2.) On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel
served a Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information, providing a
new physical and mailing address (eric@trautinjurylaw.com). (Id., Exs. 3-4.) On February 23, 2025, defense counsel Joseph
Cheung emailed diana@trautinjurylaw.com and eric@trautfirm.com asking for the
earliest date to conduct Plaintiff’s remote deposition. (Id., Ex. 5.) On February 25, 2025, Mr. Traut
(eric@trautfirm.com) emailed back that March 11 or 12 would work,
and Mr. Cheung responded to eric@trautfirm.com and diana@trautinjurylaw.com,
“Let’s go with March 12 at 10:00 a.m.” (Id.
at Exs. 5-6.) On February 25, 2025, SGT
electronically served a Notice of Continuance of Taking Deposition of
Plaintiff, scheduling the date for March 12, 2025; the proof of service states
that it was served on eric@trautfirm.com and the email chain shows that it was
served on eric@trautinjurylaw.com, diana@trautinjurylaw.com, evelia@ttrautinjurylaw.com,
and morgan@trautinjurylaw.com. (Id.,
Exs. 7-8.) Mr. Traut responded to this
email the same day informing defense firm’s legal secretary (Laura Paul) that Evelia’s
email was incorrect because it had too many “t’s”. (Id., Ex. 8.) On March 10, 2025, Ms. Paul sent the Zoom
link for the March 12, 2025 deposition to Plaintiff’s counsel at
eric@trautinjurylaw.com, diana@trautinjurylaw.com, and evelia@trautinjurylaw.com. (Id., Ex. 9.) On March 12, 2025, Defendants took the
non-appearance of Plaintiff at the deposition.
(Id., Exs. 10-11, 15.)
On March 12, 2025, Mr. Cheung
emailed Mr. Traut regarding Plaintiff’s missed deposition and agreed to set a
new date for April 22, 2025. (Id.,
Ex. 12.) Mr. Traut responded that had he
received the Zoom link, he would have requested a new date since no notice of
deposition was received by his firm. (Id.) Mr. Traut also includes an email exchange
with Plaintiff on March 7, 2025 wherein he stated he should have a deposition
date by “Monday.” (Id.) Defendants provide the parties’ email
exchanges regarding whether notice of the deposition and Zoom link were
received and the proper emails addresses of Mr. Traut’s attorneys. (Id., Exs. 13-14.) Mr. Traut emailed stating that they were in
the process of changing email addresses and Evelia emailed stating that her
email is still evelia@trautfirm.com (though Mr. Traut previously corrected
defense counsel’s misspelling of her email address as
evelia@trautinjurylaw.com).
Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff
to attend his deposition on April 22, 2025 and to seek compensation for
Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the March 12, 2025 deposition.
In the opposition brief (filed May
20, 2025), Plaintiff states that his deposition was taken on April 22,
2025. Defendants’ reply brief confirms
that the deposition went forward. As
such, the motion is moot with respect to compelling Plaintiff to attend his
deposition.
Thus, the remaining issue is
sanctions.
Defendants seek $3,695 in sanctions. This accounts for defense counsel’s 6.9 hours
to draft the motion, and 5.5 anticipated hours to review the opposition, draft
a reply brief, and attend the hearing (12.4 hours x $225/hour = $2,790), plus
$906 for the videographer and court reporter fees for Plaintiff’s
non-appearance at the March12, 2025 deposition.
(Edward Y. Chau Decl., ¶3; Cheung Decl., ¶12.) In opposition, Plaintiff argues that
Defendants filed this motion solely to seek sanctions since Plaintiff’s counsel
knew that the parties had already agreed to a deposition date prior to filing
the motion.
Indeed, this motion was unnecessary as the
parties had agreed to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition on April 22, 2025, which
was known to the parties before Plaintiff filed this motion. (The Court further notes that it could not
grant the relief to compel Plaintiff’s deposition for the April 22, 2025 scheduled
date as this motion hearing was scheduled for June 6, 2025, which is after
the deposition date.) Thus, the Court
declines to award sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees for defense
counsel’s time spent on drafting this motion as it was unnecessary to compel
Plaintiff’s deposition. However, the
Court will award sanctions the $905 costs incurred by Defendants for taking
Plaintiff’s nonappearance at the March 12, 2025 deposition.
CONCLUSION AND
ORDER
Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s
deposition is denied as moot as Plaintiff’s deposition was already
conducted. Plaintiff and his counsel of
record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay as a monetary sanctions for
Plaintiff’s nonappearance to the March 12, 2025 deposition in the amount of $905
to Defendants, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.
Defendants shall provide notice of this
order.
DATED: June 6, 2025 ___________________________
John
J. Kralik
Judge
of the Superior Court