Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 19STCV19523, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

On August 8, 2023, Defendant, C.R.P. Alagh Corp., Inc., filed this motion for an order compelling non-party witness, Peter Shah, to personally appear at deposition and to produce documents. Defendant seeks sanctions against Shah.

On August 24, 2023, Defendant filed a proof of service showing Shah was personally served with this motion on August 8, 2023.

Any party may obtain discovery by taking in California the oral deposition of any person. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A deposition subpoena may command the attendance and the testimony of a nonparty deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.) If a nonparty deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.480, 2025.480.)

If the nonparty deponent is a natural person, any person may serve the subpoena by personal delivery of a copy of it to that person. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (b)(1).) Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require the personal attendance and testimony of the nonparty deponent, if the subpoena so specifies. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (c)(1).)

“A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.)

A nonparty that fails to appear pursuant to a deposition subpoena is subject to the payment of damages, in addition to the payment of $500. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2020.240 and 1992.)

Defendant properly served Shah with a subpoena and a notice of deposition on June 15, 2023. The deposition was scheduled for July 24, 2023. However, Shah failed to interpose any objections or to appear. (See Wilbur Decl., ¶¶ 12, 14, 15.)

Accordingly, the motion to compel Peter Shah to personally appear for deposition and to produce documents is GRANTED.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Shah. Pursuant to Section 2025.450, subdivision (g)(1), the Court is obligated to impose sanctions.[1] Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Shah in the sum of $1,460, consisting of two hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate, $60 in filing fees, and $500 in forfeiture damages under CCP sections 2020.240 and 1992.

The motion is granted. The Court orders nonparty Peter Shah to personally appear for and produce documents at deposition within 20 days of this order.

The request for monetary sanctions is granted. The Court imposes $1,460 in sanctions against Peter Shah. Sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of this order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

[1] Defendant also requests contempt sanctions against Shah but does not adequately set forth the basis for such sanctions. Accordingly, the request for contempt sanctions is denied.