Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV25473, Date: 2024-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25473    Hearing Date: October 18, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS 

Hearing Date: 10/17/24¿ 

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV25473 ESTATE OF ROCHELLE TAYLOR vs LISA BEAUTY SALON & SPA

Moving Party: Defendant LISA BEAUTY SALON & SPA

Responding Party: Plaintiff

Notice: Sufficient¿ 

Ruling: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED

 

Background

On August 19, 2024, Defendant’s counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding Plaintiff’s deposition and provided several proposed dates. After receiving no response and on August 22, 2024, Defendant served a notice of deposition for September 16, 2024. Plaintiff did not file an objection. On September 11, 2024, Defendant’s counsel requested confirmation of the deposition date and was informed by Plaintiff’s counsel that an email would be sent to Plaintiff to confirm by September 13, 2024. Despite follow-up attempts by Defendant’s counsel on both September 13 and September 16, no responses were received. Plaintiff did not appear for the deposition. Thereafter, Defendant’s sought new dates for Plaintiff’s deposition but received no replies. Defendant now moves the Court to compel Plaintiff’s deposition.

Legal Standard 

¿¿¿¿ 

Any party may obtain any discovery of information, documents, land, property, or electronically stored information so long as the discoverable matter is not privileged, is relevant to the subject matter and can lead one to admissible evidence.¿(Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)¿¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿¿ 

Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450¿provides in pertinent part the following:¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿¿ 

“(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, 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.¿¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:¿¿¿¿¿ 

¿ 

(1) 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.¿¿¿¿¿ 

 

(2) 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.

 

Discussion

All the requirements for the present motion to compel are met. On August 22, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff with a notice of deposition set for September 16, 2024. Plaintiff did not file an objection and failed to appear at the scheduled deposition. Defendant attempted to obtain alternative deposition dates afterward but received no responses.

Plaintiff filed an objection, stating that Plaintiff's counsel has been making active efforts to contact Plaintiff but encountered difficulties. This lack of communication, however, should not be construed as an unwillingness to participate in the legal process. Plaintiff argues that the motion to compel should be reconsidered in light of these circumstances.

 

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450, the requirements for the Court to compel a deposition are clear, and Defendant has met all of them. Plaintiff’s opposition does not dispute the timeline set forth by Defendant or claim that Defendant failed to meet statutory requirements. Therefore, Plaintiff does not oppose the motion on its merits.  Accordingly, the Court grants the motion. Plaintiff Sherikia Bagley is ordered to appear for her deposition and produce all required documents without objections within 20 days of today.

 

Furthermore, sanctions are granted in part to compensate Defendant for having to file this motion to obtain Plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant's counsel that a response regarding Plaintiff’s appearance would be provided by September 13, 2024, but no response was given. Plaintiff’s counsel eventually responded after the deposition date had passed, but by then Defendant had already incurred court reporter fees. The Court finds both Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel responsible for the fees incurred by Defendant.

 

Defendant requests $1,490 in monetary sanctions. Despite Plaintiff’s objection, the Court finds this amount reasonable, as it covers the expenses incurred by Defendant in producing the certificate of non-compliance and filing the present motion. The Court, therefore, issues sanctions in the amount of $1,400 against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, payable to Defendant within 20 days of today.

 

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.