Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV26629, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV26629 Hearing Date: March 12, 2024 Dept: 27
Complaint Filed: 7/20/21
¿¿¿
Hon. Lee S. Arian¿¿¿
Department 27¿¿¿
Tentative Ruling¿¿¿
¿¿
Hearing Date: 3/12/2024
Case No./Name: 21STCV26629 GWENDOLYN THOMAS vs CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, et al.
Motion: DEFENDANT’s MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE
DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF GWENDOLYN THOMAS
Moving Party: Defendant LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Responding Party: Plaintiff
Notice: Sufficient¿¿¿
¿¿¿
Ruling: DEFENDANT’s MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE DEPOSITION
OF PLAINTIFF GWENDOLYN THOMAS IS GRANTED.
DEFENDANT’s MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $1750.
¿¿¿
BACKGROUND¿¿¿
On
July 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed the current slip and fall case. Plaintiff has
failed to attend her noticed deposition a total of 7 times on the following
dates: June 28, 2022; November 1, 2022; November 28, 2022; January 27, 2023;
May 24, 2023; June 30, 2023; and August 23, 2023. Plaintiff's attorney
unilaterally canceled the scheduled deposition five times:
·
On October 27, 2022, Michael Monzon,
paralegal for Plaintiff, sent an electronic communication stating that the
deposition scheduled for November 1, 2022, would not proceed.
·
On November 22, 2022, Mr. Monzon
sent an electronic communication stating that due to a conflict, the deposition
scheduled for November 28, 2022, would not go forward. (Ex. 7.)
·
On January 20, 2023, Mr. Monzon sent
an electronic communication indicating the deposition scheduled on January 27,
2023, was off. (Ex. 11.)
·
On May 24, 2023, Plaintiff’s
deposition noticed for that day could not go forward due to the unavailability
of Plaintiff’s attorney and the City Attorney. (Ex. 15.)
·
On June 23, 2023, Mr. Monzon
communicated that Plaintiff could not appear for her deposition noticed for
June 30, 2023. (Ex. 18.)
·
On August 18, 2023, Mr. Monzon
communicated that counsel could not appear for Plaintiff's deposition on August
23, 2023, due to counsel being sent out for trial. (Ex. 25.)
Now, Defendant moves the court to
compel Plaintiff’s deposition and impose sanctions. Plaintiff does not oppose
this motion.
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).)
“If,
after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . or employee
of a party . . . , 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. §
2025.450, subd. (a).)
“The
motion shall 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,
subd. (b)(2).)
“The
motion shall 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2025.450, subd. (b)(1).)
¿
ANALYSIS
Defendant fulfilled the meet and confer obligation. Defendant
coordinated with Plaintiff's schedule and scheduled Plaintiff's deposition 7
times over nearly a year, yet none proceeded, with the majority of
cancellations made unilaterally by Plaintiff. Plaintiff's counsel acknowledges
Defendant's right to Plaintiff's deposition but argues that the current motion
is moot because of the offer of new deposition dates. Given Plaintiff's history
of unilaterally canceling scheduled depositions, the Court does not find
Plaintiff’s argument persuasive. Thus, Defendant’s motion to compel deposition
is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is ORDERED to attend her deposition within 30 days
from today.
Sanctions
Due to Plaintiff's numerous unilateral
cancellations of scheduled depositions over a period of almost a year,
Defendant was forced to incur attorney fees by filing the present motion.
Defendant requested $2,475 in attorney fees. However, considering the simplicity
of the issues involved and Plaintiff's non-opposition, the Court hereby reduces
that amount to $1750, which Plaintiff and her counsel are ordered to pay,
jointly and severally, within 20 days of this order.
¿¿
¿PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿¿
If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to
the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT”
followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date
and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party
submitting.¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿
Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the
parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral
argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the
hearing to argue.¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿
If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing,
the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the
order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the
Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿
¿
¿¿
¿¿¿
¿