Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV31421, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV31421    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: 61

MICHAELA T. YACCOBI-MENASHERIAN, AN INDIVIDUAL vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION

Tentative

Defendant Volkswagen Group of America’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Michaela Yacobi-Menasherian is GRANTED. Plaintiff is compelled to comply with the request for deposition noticed for April 25, 2025. 

Moving party to provide notice.

Analysis:

I. MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

A party may make a motion compelling a witness’s deposition “after service of a deposition notice” if that witness “fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must include a meet-and-confer declaration and show good cause for the discovery sought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1), (2).)

Defendant Volkswagen Group of America (Defendant) moves to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Michaela T. Yacobi-Menasherian (Plaintiff). Defendant contends that it served a notice of deposition upon Plaintiff October 3, 2024, to which Plaintiff responded with objections and a statement of unavailability on the date listed. (Ginosyan Decl. ¶¶ 4–6.) Defendant repeatedly inquired for alternative dates of Plaintiff’s availability, but no dates were provided. (Ginosyan Decl. ¶¶ 7–9.) The last contact from Plaintiff was an email dated November 5, 2024, in which Plaintiff’s counsel stated that Plaintiff was out of the country for the holidays, “so scheduling has been difficult.” (Ginosyan Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. F.) The present motion was filed on November 25, 2024.

Plaintiff in opposition contends that the motion is moot, as Plaintiff has provided alternative dates of deposition in emails dated February 7 and 10, 2025. (Plata Decl. Exhs. B, C.) Plaintiff’s opposition was filed on February 11, 2025.

Defendant in reply contends that it has agreed to a proffered deposition date of April 25, 2025, yet seeks a court order compelling Plaintiff’s attendance. (Reply at p. 3.)

Such an order is warranted. Defendant’s motion was necessitated in November 2024 by the then-pending discovery cutoff date, and their requests for Plaintiff’s dates of availability met with no definitive response. Plaintiff only proffered dates of availability less than a week before filing the opposition to the motion, and there is little assurance that such dates would have been provided absent the pending motion. Good cause exists to ensure that the deposition proceeds upon the date agreed.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.