Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV07898, Date: 2023-12-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV07898 Hearing Date: December 19, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 3, 2022, Plaintiffs Lucia Castano (“Plaintiff”) and Dan Abir (“Abir”) filed this action against Defendants Kylie Arden Brown, Amber Brown, and Does 1-50 for negligence, negligence per se, and loss of consortium.
On May 4, 2022, Defendants Kylie Arden Brown and Amber Brown (collectively, “Defendants”) filed an answer.
On July 7, 2023, the Court dismissed Abir with prejudice at his request.
On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed motions to compel Defendants’ depositions and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on December 19, 2023. On December 6, 2023, Defendants filed oppositions. On December 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed replies.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 24, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff requests that the Court compel Defendants to appear for depositions and impose sanctions on Defendants.
Defendants request the Court deny the motions and impose sanctions on Plaintiff.
LEGAL STANDARD
“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).)
A motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following: "(1) 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. (2) The motion 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 the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (g)(1), provides that if a motion made under 2025.450 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.
DISCUSSION
On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff unilaterally noticed Defendants’ depositions for July 18, 2023. On July 12, 2023, Defendants objected to the notices of deposition because Defendants were not available at the time specified in the notices. The objections stated that Defendants would provide alternative dates.
On August 21, 2023, Defendants electronically served objections to the deposition notices. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410, subdivision (b), when an objection “is made three calendar days before the deposition date, the objecting party shall make personal service of the objection pursuant to Section 1011 on the party who gave notice of the deposition.” Because Defendants’ objections were not personally served, they were not valid objections for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a).
On August 24, 2023, Defendants did not appear for their depositions and Plaintiff took certificates of nonappearance.
The Court grants Plaintiff’s motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 because Defendants failed to appear for their depositions without having served valid objections. The Court orders Defendants Amber Brown and Kylie Arden Brown to appear for deposition and produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notices.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions. Defendants’ counsel has attempted to reschedule Defendants’ depositions since early September, before Plaintiff filed these motions. Defendants have not refused to attend a deposition. On these facts, imposition of sanctions would be unjust.
The Court also denies Defendants’ requests for sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Lucia Castano’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Kylie Arden Brown. The Court orders Defendant Kylie Arden Brown to appear for a deposition within 30 days of the hearing on this motion and produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Lucia Castano’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Amber Brown. The Court orders Defendant Amber Brown to appear for a deposition within 30 days of the hearing on this motion and produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Lucia Castano’s requests for sanctions.
The Court DENIES Defendant Kylie Arden Brown’s request for sanctions.
The Court DENIES Defendant Amber Brown’s request for sanctions.
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.