Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV21899, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV21899, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21899 Hearing Date: April 5, 2024 Dept: 30

JULIA MONKA vs M2 INVESTMENTS, INC., et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motions to compel the deposition of Defendant Haddad and Defendant M2 Investment’s PMQ are GRANTED. Defendant Haddad is ordered to appear for deposition within 20 days of this order. Defendant M2 Investments is ordered to produce its PMQ within 20 days of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant Haddad is ordered to pay $585 in sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days. Defendant M2 Investments, Inc. is ordered to pay $585 in sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.

Legal Standard

“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 … 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… described in the deposition notice.” (CCP § 2025.450(a).)

This motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document described in the deposition notice. (CCP § 2025.450(b).) 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 Civil Procedure section 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. ...

(CCP § 2025.480(a).)

Discussion

On October 2, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant Haddad with a notice of deposition, set for October 18, 2023. On or about October 20, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant M2

Investments with a notice of deposition for its person most knowledgeable, set for November 2, 2023. (Dordick Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. A.) Defendants served Plaintiff with “objections” to their Deposition claiming they had been unilaterally set and both Defendant’s counsel and Defendant were unavailable. (Id., ¶ 3; Exh. B.)

Objections to a notice of the deposition are very limited and may only pertain to errors or irregularities in the deposition notice itself. (CCP § 2025.410, [“Any party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2025.210) waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney or party on whom the deposition notice was served.].) Article 2 which consists of Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2025.210-2025.295 provide specific requirements that a deposition notice must satisfy.

Here, Defendant objects to the deposition on the ground that Defense counsel and witnesses are unavailable on the date unilaterally selected by Plaintiff’s counsel.

Defendant’s objections are improper as they are not objections based on the irregularity of the notice. The unilateral setting of a deposition under Los Angeles County Superior Court Rule, Local Rule 3.26 is not a basis for an objection to the notice as all local rules are preempted as to discovery. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.20(a).)

Accordingly, as Defendants have been noticed to appear at a deposition and have failed to appear, without properly objecting to the notice, Plaintiff’s motions to compel the depositions are GRANTED. Defendant Haddad is ordered to appear for deposition within 20 days and Defendant M2 Investments is ordered to produce its PMQ for deposition within 20 days of this notice.

Sanctions

If this motion 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).)

As the motions are granted, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted against Defendants. However, the amount imposed will be reduced due to the straightforward nature of the motions and the concurrent facts. As such, sanctions are imposed against Defendant Haddad in the amount of $585 ($525 x 1 hour + $60 filing fee), to be paid within 20 days of this order. Further, sanctions are imposed against Defendant M2 Investments in the amount of $585 ($525 x 1 hour + $60 filing fee), to be paid within 20 days of this order. Sanctions cannot be awarded against defense counsel because the statute says nothing about imposing sanctions against the attorney.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions to compel the deposition of Defendant Haddad and Defendant M2 Investment’s PMQ are GRANTED. Defendant Haddad is ordered to appear for deposition within 20 days of this order. Defendant M2 Investments is ordered to produce its PMQ within 20 days of this order.