Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV00108, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV00108, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

PLEASE NOTE:

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.

Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.

Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.

If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.

If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.

Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

Case Number: 22STCV00108 Hearing Date: April 11, 2024 Dept: 30

SERGIO OCHOA, et al. vs ABC INSTALLATIONS CORP., et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel requests for production of documents is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

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.” (CCP § 2025.450(a).) Such motions shall (1) set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production described in the deposition notice and (2) be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition or produce the documents, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).)

If a motion under CCP section 2025.450(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. (CCP §2025.450(g)(1).)

C.C.P. § 2025.480 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(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.

***

(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.

Discussion

On February 23, 2024, the motion to compel document production was continued to allow the parties to participate in an informal discovery conference as required by Standing Order Re Personal Injury Procedures, Spring Street Courthouse, Pg. 7.¿ In substance, this is a motion to compel further responses to document requests as Defendant objected to Plaintiffs’ request for production of documents and has failed to produce the documents.¿ But motions that require a further response to discovery require that the parties first participate in an informal discovery conference with the court. (Standing Order Re Personal Injury Procedures.)

The Court’s file did not on February 23, 204, and still does not reflect that the parties participated in an IDC with respect to the objections to questions made at Defendant’s deposition.¿¿Moreover, Plaintiffs stated that Defendant produced some documents but failed to provide all responsive documents. But Plaintiffs had not informed the Court which documents are at issue. Thus, the Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing informing the Court what documents are still at issue after the parties participated in an IDC.

Again, no attempts were made at participating in an IDC, and no party has filed anything after the February 23, 2024 order. It appears the motion is moot. Otherwise, it is denied for not participating in an IDC.

Sanctions

The issue of sanctions was to be addressed at the continued hearing. However, as no party have filed any further briefing, the Court does not have sufficient information to make a ruling imposing sanctions, and thus denies the request for sanctions.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel requests for production of documents is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.