Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV16901, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16901    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    Dept: 30

MARIA QUINTERO, et al. vs KANDICE ALEXANDER SISCO, et al.

TENTATIVE:  Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Sisco is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff to give notice.

Discussion  

On September 19, 2023, Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of Defendant Sisco to take place on October 16, 2023. (Brito Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Defendant assured Plaintiff’s counsel that she would appear. (Id., ¶ 3.) Defendant failed to serve any (written or oral) objections to the deposition notice. (Id., ¶ 4.) On October 16, 2023, Defendant failed to appear for deposition. (Id.) As such, Plaintiffs were forced to obtain a Certificate of Non-Appearance. (Id., Exh. B.)

After Defendant’s non-appearance, Plaintiffs’ counsel reached out to Defendant and, when she finally responded on October 20, 2023, Defendant simply stated she was not able to attend. (Id., ¶ 5.)                    

The Court notes that the deposition notice, and this motion were served by electronic transmission only.

Service by electronic service is authorized with conditions, such as express consent or court order. (CCP §1010.6; CRC Rule 2.251(a).) CRC Rule 2.251 provides that documents may be served by electronic service by express consent (CRC Rule 2.251(b)), or if electronic service is required by local rule or court order, then self-represented parties are to be served by non-electronic methods unless they affirmatively consent to electronic service. (CRC Rule 2.251(c)(3)(B)). Further, CCP §1010.6 provides that a document may be served electronically to an unrepresented person by express consent. (CCP §1010.6(c).)

There does not appear to be a notice of consent on record with the Court and Plaintiffs provide no evidence that Defendant who is pro per consented to electronic service.

Therefore, without such evidence the motion is DENIED without prejudice.