TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Karla Meeks’ Motion to Compel Defendant’s Deposition is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiff Karla Meeks’ Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff Karla Meeks to give notice. 

REASONING

Plaintiff Karla Meeks (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court for an order compelling Defendant RP Realty Partners, LLC (“Defendant”)’s deposition on the ground that Defendant failed to appear for its noticed deposition and has refused to cooperate in rescheduling the deposition. Defendant opposes the motion on the ground that it has not refused to appear, Plaintiff’s counsel has refused to cooperate with defense counsel’s unavailability for the noticed date, and Defendant has agreed to appear on May 7, 2024. Both parties request sanctions against the other.

“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).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b)(2), states that a motion to compel a party’s deposition “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.”

First, Defendant filed an objection to the notice of deposition, such that the Court cannot conclude that the present motion should be granted for failure to appear and failure to cooperate. (Mot., Kolber Decl. ¶ 2.) Second, the email communication provided with the motion does not show a meaningful attempt to resolve this discovery dispute without court intervention, as Plaintiff’s counsel refused to take the noticed date off calendar despite the fact that this action is relatively new. (Ibid.) Third, defense counsel has stated that Defendant and defense counsel have agreed to appear on May 7, 2024. (Opp’n, Palta Decl. ¶ 13.) Accordingly, Plaintiff Karla Meeks’ Motion to Compel Defendant’s Deposition is DENIED as MOOT.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (g)(1), provides that “[i]f a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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 sanctions here, as it is not clear that Plaintiff engaged in meaningful meet-and-confer communication before this motion was filed, and Defendant declined to timely provide alternate deposition dates. The Court encourages the parties to resolve discovery disputes without court intervention in the future.