Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV09345, Date: 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV09345 Hearing Date: March 6, 2023 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
WESLEY SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff, vs. 
 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 
 Defendant.  | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )  | CASE NO.: 21STCV09345 
 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF JENNIFER SCHANUTH AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 
 Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. March 6, 2023  | 
BACKGROUND
On March 10, 2021, Wesley Schwartz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”). Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Public Entity Liability; (2) Dangerous Condition of Public Property; and (3) Negligence. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that, on approximately August 28, 2020, Plaintiff was riding a scooter on Abbot Kinney Boulevard when, without warning, Plaintiff came into contact with a pothole, causing Plaintiff to fly from his scooter and collide into a bicycle rack on a sidewalk. Plaintiff contends Defendant acted negligently by failing to properly warn or otherwise inform persons of the pothole. At his deposition, Plaintiff testified that the incident occurred while he and Jennifer Schanuth (“Schanuth”) were riding motorized scooters to Schanuth’s home.
Defendant now moves to compel Schanuth, a percipient eyewitness in this matter, to sit for deposition. Defendant also requests $1,526.90 in monetary sanctions against Schanuth. No opposition has been filed.
LEGAL STANDARD
Compel Deposition
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).)
Monetary Sanctions
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.)
III. ANALYSIS
Compel Deposition
On July 27, 2022, Defendant served a deposition notice on Schanuth. (Dixon Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 2.) The notice indicated that Schanuth’s deposition would take place on August 8, 2022. (Id.) Plaintiff served an objection to the deposition and a Motion to Quash, but Plaintiff’s counsel later indicated he would defend Schanuth’s deposition and accept service on her behalf. (Dixon Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 3.) On August 24, 22, pursuant to Defendant’s request, the Motion to Quash the Deposition Subpoena of Jennifer Schanuth was taken off calendar.
On September 21, 2022, Defendant served an amended deposition notice which noticed a mutually agreed upon date of October 11, 2022. However, because of a scheduling conflict, the parties agreed to reschedule Schanuth’s deposition. Plaintiff offered dates after the discovery cut-off, then failed to provide any date for the deposition. As such, Defendant issued a second amended deposition notice for Schanuth’s deposition on October 24, 2022. (Dixon Decl., ¶ 11-12, Ex. 6.) Schanuth neither objected nor appeared for deposition on October 24.
Defendant properly noticed Schanuth’s deposition and Schanuth failed to appear. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel the deposition of Jennifer Schanuth is GRANTED.
Monetary Sanctions
Defendant requests $2,540.65 in sanctions to cover fees and costs for bringing this motion. Defendant offers a declaration from counsel who states he spent 3.5 hours preparing this motion and anticipates spending another 1.5 hours preparing a reply and attending the hearing at an hourly rate of $302.50.
Pursuant to Section 2025.450, subdivision (g)(1), the Court is obligated to impose sanctions. Defendant’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable. However, this is an unopposed motion. Two hours for preparing this motion and another hour for attending the hearing is sufficient—for a total of 3 hours at $302.50 per hour ($907.50), plus $60 filing fee, $468.15 court reporter fee, and $500 (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2020.240 and 1992), for a total of $1,935.65.
IV. CONCLUSION
The motion is granted. The Court orders Jennifer Schanuth to appear for deposition within 30 days of notice of this order.
The Court imposes $1,935.65 in sanctions against Jennifer Schanuth. Sanctions are to be paid within thirty (30) days of notice 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 6th day of March 2023
 
  | 
  | 
  | Hon. Kerry Bensinger Judge of the Superior Court 
  |