Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21SMCV00515, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21SMCV00515 Hearing Date: January 23, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Morris v. Hirsch,
et al.
CASE NO.: 21SMCV00515
MOTION: Motion
to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff
HEARING DATE: 1/23/2024
Legal
Standard
Service of a proper deposition
notice obligates a party or “party-affiliated” witness (officer, director,
managing agent or employee of party) to attend and testify, as well as produce
any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for
inspection and copying. (CCP § 2025.280(a).) If, after service of a deposition
notice, a party deponent fails to appear, testify, or produce documents or
tangible things for inspection without having served a valid objection under
CCP § 2025.410, the deposing party may move for an order compelling attendance,
testimony, and production. (CCP § 2025.450(a).) The motion must be accompanied
by a meet and confer declaration, or, when a party deponent fails to attend the
deposition, the motion must also be accompanied by a declaration stating that
the moving party has contacted the party deponent to inquire about the
nonappearance. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).)
A motion to compel production
of documents described in a deposition notice must be accompanied by a showing
of good cause. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(1).) In other words, the moving party must
provide evidence (generally in the form of declarations) showing specific facts
justifying inspection of the documents described in the notice. Courts
liberally construe good cause in favor of discovery where facts show the
documents are necessary for trial preparation.
The motion to compel must be
“made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the
deposition.” (CCP § 2025.480(b).) This time limit also applies to motions based
on a deposition subpoena for production of documents or a business records subpoena.
The 60-day time limit runs from the date objections are served because the
deposition record is then complete. (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
(2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1192.)
Analysis
Defendants Alice Hirsch and Nathan
Hirsch move to compel Plaintiff Sophie Morris to attend a deposition on
February 6, 2024, at 10:00 am at Veritext Court Reporting, 707 Wilshire
Boulevard, Suite 3500, Los Angeles, CA 90017, or on another mutually convenient
date and time. Defendants also seek sanctions for fees and costs of $1,063.00.
On September 25, 2023, Defendants
served a Notice of Taking Deposition upon Plaintiff,
scheduling the deposition for November 28, 2023, at 10:00 am.
(Bowen Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Plaintiff failed to serve an objection to the
deposition notice. (¶ 4.) The day prior to the deposition, Defendants’
counsel’s office contacted Plaintiff’s counsel to confirm Plaintiff would be
appearing. (¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendants that Plaintiff
apparently went on a spur-of-the-moment cruise and could not be contacted. (¶
6.) As such, Plaintiff failed to appear for her noticed deposition. ¶ 7.) Defense counsel offered numerous dates
to set Plaintiff’s deposition, but Plaintiff failed to accept or offer any
alternative dates. (¶ 10.) With this record, Defendants demonstrate that
Plaintiff failed to attend her duly noticed deposition.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ordered to attend her deposition at Veritext Court Reporting, 707
Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3500, Los Angeles, CA 90017 at mutually convenient
date and time, within 10 days of this order.
Sanctions are mandatory, unless 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).) The above record demonstrates that Plaintiff’s discovery abuse
necessitated this motion. Therefore, sanctions will be imposed against
Plaintiff. The Court finds the noticed sanctions reasonable. Accordingly,
sanctions are imposed in the noticed amount of $1,063.00, inclusive of costs,
against Plaintiff and payable within 30 days.