Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV22835, Date: 2025-03-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV22835 Hearing Date: March 3, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 14, 2022, Plaintiffs Raul Flores (“Flores”), Maria Ramirez (“Ramirez”), and Johan Rodriguez, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Raul Flores, filed this action against Defendants Jose Chavira (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On June 9, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
On November 20, 2024, Defendant filed motions to compel Flores and Ramirez to attend, testify, and produce documents at depositions and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on January 9, 2025. Plaintiffs did not file oppositions. The Court continued the hearings to March 3, 2025.
Trial is currently set for September 16, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendant asks the Court to compel Flores and Ramirez to attend, testify, and produce documents at depositions. Defendant also asks the Court to impose sanctions on Flores, Ramirez, and their counsel.
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 or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, 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.
*
* *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (a), (b), (g)(1).)
DISCUSSION
A. Raul Flores
On August 16, 2024, Defendant noticed Flores’s deposition for August 27, 2024. (Paz dec. ¶ 2.) The deposition notice included a request to produce documents. (Paz dec. ¶ 2.) Defendant took the August 27, 2024 deposition off calendar at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request. (Motion p. 4.)
On September 19, 2024, Defendant’s counsel re-noticed Flores’s deposition for October 3, 2024. (Paz dec. ¶ 6.)
On October 1, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Defendant’s counsel that he could not attend the deposition due to an illness in his family. (Paz dec. ¶ 7.) Defendant’s counsel declined to take the October 3, 2024 deposition off calendar until Plaintiffs’ counsel committed to a new deposition date. (Paz dec. ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond to Defendant’s counsel’s meet and confer efforts. (Paz dec. ¶ 8.)
Flores did not appear at the October 3, 2024 deposition and Defendant’s counsel took a certificate of non-appearance. (Paz dec. ¶ 9.) On November 11, 2024, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to inquire about Flores’s non-appearance. (Paz dec. ¶ 10.)
Defendant now asks the Court to compel Flores to attend, testify, and produce documents at a deposition and to impose sanctions on Flores and his counsel.
The Court denies the motion. Defendant has not asserted or shown that Flores failed to serve a valid objection to the deposition notice for the October 3, 2024 deposition. The Court will not assume the existence of this requirement for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subd. (a) [“without having served a valid objection” under Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410].) The Court therefore denies the motion.
B. Maria Ramirez
On August 16, 2024, Defendant noticed Ramirez’s deposition for August 27, 2024. (Paz dec. ¶ 2.) The deposition notice included a request to produce documents. (Paz dec. ¶ 2.) Defendant took the August 27, 2024 deposition off calendar at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request. (Motion p. 4.)
On September 19, 2024, Defendant’s counsel re-noticed Ramirez’s deposition for October 3, 2024. (Paz dec. ¶ 6.)
On October 1, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Defendant’s counsel that he could not attend the deposition due to an illness in his family. (Paz dec. ¶ 7.) Defendant’s counsel declined to take the October 3, 2024 deposition off calendar until Plaintiffs’ counsel committed to a new deposition date. (Paz dec. ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond to Defendant’s counsel’s meet and confer efforts. (Paz dec. ¶ 8.)
Ramirez did not appear at the October 3, 2024 deposition and Defendant’s counsel took a certificate of non-appearance. (Paz dec. ¶ 9.) On November 11, 2024, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to inquire about Ramirez’s non-appearance. (Paz dec. ¶ 10.)
Defendant now asks the Court to compel Ramirez to attend, testify, and produce documents at a deposition and to impose sanctions on Ramirez and her counsel.
The
Court denies the motion. Defendant has
not asserted or shown that Ramirez failed to serve a valid objection to the
deposition notice for the October 3, 2024 deposition. The Court will not assume the existence of
this requirement for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subd.
(a) [“without having served a valid objection” under Code Civ. Proc., §
2025.410].) The Court therefore denies
the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant Jose Chavira’s motion to compel Plaintiff Raul Flores to attend, testify, and produce documents at a deposition and for sanctions.
The Court DENIES Defendant Jose Chavira’s motion to compel Plaintiff Maria Ramirez to attend, testify, and produce documents at a deposition and for sanctions.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Moving party is ordered to file a proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.