Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV30772, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30772    Hearing Date: January 23, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, alleging injuries from a fall on a bus operated by Defendant on July 8, 2023. Defendant filed its Answer and served written discovery and a deposition notice on March 1, 2024.

Plaintiff repeatedly failed to provide timely discovery responses, causing Defendant to reschedule Plaintiff’s deposition multiple times from May 29, 2024, to July 16, September 12, November 19, and December 16, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel consistently cited difficulties in reaching Plaintiff and requested numerous cancelation and continuances. Defendant now moves the court to compel Plaintiff to sit for his deposition scheduled for January 31, 2025.

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.¿¿¿¿¿ 

Plaintiff did not serve a valid objection after being served with the deposition notice and canceled the deposition numerous times, thereby failing to proceed with the deposition. Defendant has met the requirements to compel deposition under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450.

Plaintiff filed an opposition; however, Plaintiff does not oppose the merits of the motion or that the deposition should be compelled. Instead, Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff is still experiencing difficulty in appearing for the deposition and requests the Court to schedule the deposition at least three weeks out. Defendant has met all the requirements to compel the deposition under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450. The motion is granted, and Plaintiff is ordered to sit for the deposition within 30 days of today.

The Court finds that Plaintiff did not act with substantial justification. Defendant's request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,200 is granted against Plaintiff only. Plaintiff’s counsel has made several representations that they attempted to contact Plaintiff but were unable to do so, and the Court finds that counsel is acting in good faith. Plaintiff, on the other hand, who initiated this case, is failing to communicate with counsel and to comply with discovery obligations and, therefore, did not act with substantial justification.

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