TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff LFT Holdings, LLC’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Galia Kassabian to Appear and Answer Questions at Deposition and to Produce Documents and Things Described in the Notice of Deposition is GRANTED. The parties shall meet and confer to set Plaintiff Galia Kassabian’s deposition to occur on February 12, 13, or 15, 2024.

Plaintiff LFT Holdings, LLC’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED. Defendant Galia Kassabian’s Request to Continue Trial is DENIED. Defendant Galia Kassabian’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff LFT Holdings, LLC to give notice. 

REASONING

Plaintiff LFT Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court for an order compelling Defendant Galia Kassabian (“Defendant”) to appear for her deposition in accordance with the deposition notices and continuances served on October 27, 2023, December 8, 2023, December 12, 2023, and January 2, 2024. Plaintiff represents that it served Plaintiff with a notice of deposition and three continuances on those dates, but Defendant failed to serve an objection to the notice and failed to provide dates prior to mid-February for which she would appear for deposition. (Mot., Breman Decl. ¶¶ 10-18, Exs. D-M.) Plaintiff took a Certificate of Non-Appearance on January 8, 2024, when Defendant failed to appear for deposition. (Mot., Breman Decl. ¶ 19, Ex. N.)

“If, 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, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) 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” and “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds, (b)(1), (b)(2).)

It is axiomatic that Plaintiff is entitled to take Defendant’s deposition, and Plaintiff has failed to appear for the deposition or serve a valid objection to the notice of deposition. Further, despite Plaintiff’s counsel efforts to meet and confer, Defendant failed to provide reasonable dates for her deposition given that trial was set to occur on March 18, 2024, even if Defendant desired for trial to be continued. Accordingly, Plaintiff LFT Holdings, LLC’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Galia Kassabian to Appear and Answer Questions at Deposition and to Produce Documents and Things Described in the Notice of Deposition is GRANTED. The parties shall meet and confer to set Plaintiff Galia Kassabian’s deposition to occur on February 12, 13, or 15, 2024.

Insofar as Defendant requests an order continuing trial, the request is DENIED, as Defendant has not made a properly noticed motion or application for a continuance. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b) [request to continue trial must be made by motion or ex parte application.) Further, given that Plaintiff’s motion has been granted, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (g)(1), provides that if a motion to compel a deposition is granted, the Court shall impose monetary sanctions “in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” The Court declines to award monetary sanctions here, as Defendant represents that she is unable to pay such sanctions. Defendant has not provided a sworn statement to this effect, but the Court credits Defendant’s representations at this juncture. Should sanctions be sought at a later juncture, the Court may order Defendant to provide evidence of inability to pay if necessary.