Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV24495, Date: 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24495    Hearing Date: January 25, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On June 30, 2020, plaintiff Aleena Montoya (“Plaintiff”) filed this negligence action against defendants Erika Jannett Salazar, Maria C. Salazar, and Pedro E. Salazar (collectively, “Defendants”). Trial is currently scheduled for May 17, 2023. 

On December 21, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motion to compel the depositions of Plaintiff. The motion is unopposed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

The party served with a deposition notice waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).) In addition to serving this written objection, a party may also move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (c).)

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . without having served a valid objection . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Where a motion to compel a party’s appearance and testimony at deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent, unless the court finds the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) On motion of a party who, in person or by attorney, attended at the time and place specified in the deposition notice in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of that party and against the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(2).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff’s deposition was rescheduled multiple times at the request of both parties. Defendants served a fifth notice of taking deposition on October 14, 2022 set for November 23, 2022. (Garibyan Decl., ¶14, Exh. H.) On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel did not appear at the scheduled deposition. Defendants’ counsel obtained a certificate of non-appearance. (Garibyan Decl., ¶15, Exh. I.) As Defendants sent a notice of deposition on Plaintiff and Plaintiff failed to appear, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition.  Sanctions are mandatory, absent a basis for the Court to find the imposition of sanctions are unjust. Accordingly, sanctions are warranted in the amount of requested amount of $561.65 based on 2 hours for the motion and hearing at counsel’s hourly rate of $250, plus a $61.65 filing fee.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $561.65 to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.

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.

Dated this 25th day of January 2023