Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV36941, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV36941 Hearing Date: March 15, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 6, 2021, Plaintiff Oliver Gabay (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Sidney Hales (“Hales”), The Express Group Inc. dba Westwood Express Messenger Service (“Express”), and Does 1-20 for negligence.
On March 21, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants Marco Raygoza as Doe 1 (“Raygoza”) and Uber Technologies, Inc. as Doe 2 (“Uber”).
On July 1, 2022, Raygoza filed an answer. On July 29, 2022, Uber filed an answer.
On September 27, 2022, the Court granted Uber’s motion to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims against Uber and stayed the entire case pending arbitration. (The Court does not appear to have lifted the stay.)
On January 25, 2023, the Court dismissed Uber without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On February 9, 2023, Express filed an answer. On February 24, 2023, Hales filed an answer.
On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Hales’s responses to request for production, to be heard on March 15, 2024. On March 8, 2024, Hales filed an untimely opposition. Also on March 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Trial is scheduled for June 27, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to order Hales to respond to the request for production of documents contained in the deposition notice served on him.
Defendant asks the Court to deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480 provides in part:
“(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.
“(b) This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(c) Notice of this motion shall be given to all parties and to the deponent either orally at the examination, or by subsequent service in writing. If the notice of the motion is given orally, the deposition officer shall direct the deponent to attend a session of the court at the time specified in the notice.
* * *
“(i) If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition.
“(j) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subds. (a), (b), (c), (h), (i), (j).)
DISCUSSION
On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff served a notice of taking Hales’s deposition, including a request for production of documents. The deposition took place on February 6, 2024.
Plaintiff asserts that Hales failed to produce any documents or respond to the request for production. When Plaintiff’s counsel asked about the lack of response, Hales’s counsel stated: “Any documents have been produced and we have nothing else.”
In opposition, Hales states that he “does not have any additional responsive documents besides the photos and other documents he has already produced.” (Opposition p. 2.) Hales also argues that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer before filing the motion.
It is undisputed that Plaintiff did not meet and confer with Hales before filing the motion to compel. Plaintiff argues that he was not required to meet and confer because Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.450 does not contain a meet and confer requirement. Yet Plaintiff cites Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.480, which contains a meet and confer requirement, as authority for his motion. (Motion p. 4; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (b) [meet and confer declaration required].) Because the deposition took place, Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.480 applies to this issue.
The Court denies the motion because Plaintiff has not complied with the meet and confer requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, subdivision (b).
CONCLUSION
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.