Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV29591, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29591    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: 30

MARZIYEH AKBARI vs PINE TREE COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motions to compel the deposition of Defendants’ PMK are CONTINUED.

Moving party is ordered 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.

Discussion

On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Defendants Aslan and Village Walk’s person most knowledgeable (PMK) for October 25, 2023. (Baker Decl., Exh. 1.) On October 19, 2023, Defendants served Objections to the Notice of Deposition, on the ground that it was unilaterally set. (Id., Exh. 2.)

Defendants provided three alternative dates in early December, but also conditioned their availability upon having a joint PMK deposition with one other. When Plaintiff refused to allow a joint deposition and insisted on two separate depositions for each Defendant, Defense counsel simply ignored the demand and has never responded to Plaintiff’s email insisting on two separate depositions. (Id., Exh. 5.) On October 25, 2023, Defendants failed to appear for deposition. (Id., Exh. 8.)

However, the motion does not contain a meet and confer declaration under CCP section¿2025.450(b) showing that Plaintiff contacted Defendants to inquire about the non-appearance. Plaintiff appears to rely on meet and confer efforts prior to the missed deposition, however the Court finds this insufficient as required by CCP section 2025.450(b)(2). In any event, as to the meet and confer efforts prior to the non-appearance, it appears Defendants’ counsel referred to the PMK as “joint” because the PMK was going to be same person for both depositions.

As such, the motion is CONTINUED. Plaintiff is ordered to submit evidence showing Plaintiff’s counsel inquired about the non-appearance. Both parties are strongly encouraged to proceed with the depositions to avoid potentially being compelled to appear and pay sanctions.

Sanctions

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 section¿2025.450(g)(1).)

Sanctions against Defendants will be addressed at the next hearing.