Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV18789, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18789    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On June 8, 2022, Plaintiff Gabriella I. Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) filed this motor vehicle negligence action against Defendant Wayne B. Shaw (“Defendant”). Trial is currently scheduled for April 4, 2024. 

On December 18, 2023, Defendant L filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff. Plaintiff opposes.

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

Defendant first served a deposition notice on May 15, 2023, for a deposition to be taken on August 10, 2023, and October 24, 2023. (Schmeckpeper Decl., ¶2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not object, but when defense counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel on August 7, 2023 to confirm the deposition would proceed, Plaintiff requested a new date due to a scheduling conflict. (Id. at ¶¶3-4, Exh. B.). The deposition was then rescheduled for October 24, 2023, based on mutual agreement. (Id. at ¶5.) On August 24, 2023, a Notice of Continuance of Deposition for October 24, 2023 was served on Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶6, Exh. D.) No objection was made, but on October 23, 2024, the day before the deposition, Plaintiff requested another date due to the passing of a friend. (Id. at ¶8, Exh. E.) Defense counsel agreed to reschedule and provided dates and stated that if he did not receive an alternative date then he would make a motion to compel the deposition. (Id. at ¶9, Exh. F.) Defense counsel did not receive a prompt response to his email and reserved the motion hearing date. (Id. at ¶¶10-11.) The parties agreed to a deposition date of January 16, 2023, one day before the scheduled hearing, and Defendant has agreed to take this matter off calendar if Plaintiff appears for this deposition. As Defendant sent a notice of deposition on Plaintiff and Plaintiff failed to appear or object, the motion is GRANTED.

Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $700.68 based on 2 hours to prepare the motion, 1 hour to reply, and 1 hour to appear for the hearing at the rate of $160.17/hour, plus a $60 filing fee. The Court finds this amount reasonable and that sanctions are warranted as Plaintiff did not object to the two notices, and did not appear twice for deposition. While the parties have agreed on a date for deposition, if the deposition goes forward then Defendant has agreed to take this matter off calendar. Further, Defendant acted within reason in setting this hearing date after two rescheduled deposition and not receiving a prompt response for rescheduling. Accordingly, the Court finds that sanctions are warranted and grants them in the amount of $700.68.

IV.        CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Sanctions are granted in the amount of $700.68.

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 17th day of January 2024