Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV25579, Date: 2025-05-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25579    Hearing Date: May 27, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On April 2, 2025, Plaintiff noticed the depositions of Defendant Palladium Alliance, LLC’s employees: Danny Abdelmalek (April 17, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.), William Kamar (April 17, 2025, at 1:00 p.m.), and Genara Batres (April 17, 2025, at 3:30 p.m.). Defendant did not object to the deposition notice. Instead, on April 16, 2025, at approximately 7:34 p.m., Defendants’ counsel sent an email stating that the deponents would not appear for their depositions. Plaintiff appeared for the depositions and obtained a certificate of non-appearance. On April 18, 2025, Plaintiff proposed an alternative date for the depositions. However, Defendants did not respond. Plaintiff now moves to compel the depositions.

Plaintiff has met the requirements to compel the depositions. No objections were served; Defendants did not appear for the depositions; and Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with counsel afterwards but received no response, resulting in the filing of this motion. Defendant contends that on April 9, 2025, it drafted objections but did not serve them. The fact that Defendant drafted objections is irrelevant if Plaintiff did not receive them. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer before filing this motion. However, when a deponent fails to appear, the moving party is only required to submit a declaration stating that they contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance, which Plaintiff did on April 18, 2025.

Defendant concedes that Plaintiff’s counsel should be reimbursed for all reasonable costs incurred as a result of the failure to appear. However, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not cancel the deposition and instead proceeded with it. Plaintiff contends that by the time notice of nonappearance was received, it was already too late to cancel the court reporter for the next morning without incurring an appearance fee. This is reasonable, as the cancellation occurred the night before the deposition was scheduled. Whether Plaintiff was charged an appearance fee for canceling the deposition or for appearing to obtain a certificate of nonappearance is irrelevant, because in either circumstance, an appearance fee was incurred.

Defendant contends that the deposition of Palladium’s PMK was ultimately conducted on May 9, 2025, where both Danny Abdelmalek and William Kamar appeared as Defendant’s PMKs. However, the April 2, 2025 notice is not a notice for a PMK deposition. Nowhere in the notice does it invoke Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230, state that it is a PMK deposition, or list the categories for PMK testimony. Danny Abdelmalek, William Kamar, and Genara Batres were noticed to testify based on their personal knowledge relating to this case. Furthermore, Defendant’s allegations regarding Plaintiff’s counsel’s alleged misconduct during the PMK deposition are irrelevant to this motion.

Defendant further argues that Genara Batres is a Social Equity Partner who has never been to the subject store, is not involved in the company’s operations, and possesses no relevant or probative knowledge. However, this is merely counsel’s assertion. There is no declaration from Ms. Batres supporting this claim. Moreover, Plaintiff is entitled to test that contention through deposition.

Defendant’s employees Danny Abdelmalek, William Kamar, and Genara Batres are ordered to appear for their depositions within 20 days of this order. The Court also sanctions Defendant in the reduced amount of $2,500 for both Defendant’s nonappearance and the attorney’s fees incurred in bringing this motion. This amount is to be paid jointly and severally by Defendant and its counsel of record to Plaintiff within 20 days of this order.

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’s 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. 

__________________________ 

Hon. Lee S. Arian  

Judge of the Superior Court