Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01018, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01018, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01018 Hearing Date: October 2, 2024 Dept: C

MARIVEL CARDOZA vs. ALAN GILBERT HERNANDEZ

CASE NO.: 23NWCV01018

HEARING: 10/02/2024

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Alan Gilbert Hernandez is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Background

On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff Marivel Cardoza (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendant Alan Gilbert Hernandez (“Defendant”) alleging (1) general negligence; and (2) motor vehicle negligence. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on January 19, 2022, Plaintiff was struck by Defendant’s vehicle which caused Plaintiff’s damages.

On September 15, 2023, Defendant filed their Answer.

On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff served notice of Defendant’s deposition set for April 5, 2024.

On April 3, 2024, Defense counsel confirmed that he was unable to reach Defendant so Defendant would not be appearing at the deposition.

On April 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

Defendants did not file an opposition.

Legal Standard

C.C.P. §2025.450(a) provides that, “[i]f, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action… without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination…, 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.”

Meet and Confer

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer efforts were sufficient, as Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 subdivision (b)(2) requires that the motion to compel deposition be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

On review of the Declaration of Laura Ames, Esq., the Court notes that Plaintiff has satisfied their meet and confer obligation prior to filing the instant motion. Plaintiff’s Attorney Ames declares that they engaged in telephone correspondence with Defense Counsel two days before the scheduled deposition wherein Defense Counsel’s confirmed their inability to reach Defendant such that Defendant would not be appearing at the deposition. (Mot, Ames Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff subsequently confirmed the information discussed on the phone via email and notified Defense counsel that Plaintiff would be moving to compel Defendant’s deposition. (Mot, Ames Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 2.)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s efforts sufficient to fulfill this procedural requirement.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant. The notice of deposition was properly served on Defendant’s attorney, E. Michael Kwan, by electronic service on March 5, 2024. (Mot, Ames Decl., Exh. 1.) Defendant did not file an opposition and did not serve a valid objection under Section 2025.410. Defendant failed to appear for examination and Defense Counsel has been unable to contact Defendant. (Mot, Ames Decl., ¶ 3.) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to 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.