Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV16064, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV16064 Hearing Date: January 19, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, response, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 13, 2022, Plaintiff Anthony Young (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Rasier, LLC (“Rasier”), Rasier-CA, LLC (“Rasier-CA”), Efrain Carrasco Sanchez (“Carrasco Sanchez”), and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Rasier, Rasier-CA, Carrasco Sanchez, and Does 1-20 for negligence and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention.
On September 12, 2022, Uber, Rasier, and Rasier-CA filed answers. On September 14, 2022, Carrasco Sanchez filed an answer. On September 15, 2022, Uber filed an amended answer. On September 16, 2022, Rasier and Rasier-CA filed amended answers.
On October 12, 2023, Carrasco Sanchez filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition, to be heard on January 19, 2024. On January 11, 2024, Carrasco Sanchez filed a reply. On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a late response to the motion.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 12, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Carrasco
Sanchez requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to appear for a deposition.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 provides in part:
“(a) 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.
“(b) A motion under 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 that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the
nonappearance.
* * *
“(g) (1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted,
the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
2023.010) 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.
“(2) On motion of any other party who, in person or by attorney, attended at the time and place specified in the deposition notice in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of that party 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. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (a), (b), (g).)
DISCUSSION
Carrasco Sanchez first noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for April 28, 2023. The parties agreed to take Plaintiff’s deposition off calendar due to a change in Plaintiff’s counsel.
Carrasco Sanchez re-noticed the deposition for June 16, 2023, a date provided by Plaintiff's counsel. On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Carrasco Sanchez that Plaintiff needed to continue the deposition.
On June 27, 2023, the parties agreed to schedule the deposition for July 3. Plaintiff failed to appear for the deposition. On July 12, 2023, the parties agreed to set Plaintiff’s deposition on July 14, 2023. Plaintiff failed to appear. On July 18, 2023, the parties agreed to set Plaintiff’s deposition on July 20, 2023. Again, Plaintiff failed to appear. Plaintiff also failed to appear at a scheduled September 27, 2023 deposition.
Plaintiff asserts that he is willing to appear for a deposition but has faced obstacles including lack of funds and lack of a mobile phone.
The Court grants the motion. Despite Plaintiff’s stated willingness to appear for a deposition, the facts suggest that Plaintiff will not attend his deposition without a court order.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Efrain Carrasco Sanchez’s motion to compel Plaintiff Anthony Young to attend his deposition within 30 days of the hearing on this motion. Defendant Efrain Carrasco Sanchez is to make all necessary arrangements to take Plaintiff's deposition by this deadline.
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.