Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21SMCV01757, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01757    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Hasson, v. Leeds Property Management, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                21SMCV01757

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Depo/Responses to RPD

HEARING DATE:   3/13/2023

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

Plaintiff Meitel Hasson moves to compel Defendant Fidel Alonso to: 1) provide responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition/Request for Production of Documents; and 2) sit for another round of deposition within 10 days from the date of the court. Plaintiff also requests costs and fees for bringing this motion, and for the second deposition, due to Defendant’s failure to provide a response.  The parties agreed to an “open-ended” extension to file this motion. Therefore, the motion is timely made more than 60 days after the completion of the deposition.

The motion seeking to compel responses is moot per the service of code-compliant responses. On February 28, 2023, defense counsel served a written response to the demand for inspection and supplemented the production with documents bates stamped LEEDS001192-LEEDS001270, which includes records relating to leak complaints in surrounding units. (Decl. of Edson, Exhibit A) This is in addition to the documents already produced at deposition, bates stamped as LEEDS001000-LEEDS00112 and LEEDS00113- LEEDS1188. Defendant does not dispute that no objection or timely response was served. Counsel explains that this was the result of an oversight and miscommunication between defense counsel.  Otherwise, Plaintiff does not explain why a further deposition should be ordered. In reply, Plaintiff does not suggest that they still seek to compel a second deposition. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to grant the second request to order a subsequent deposition.

            Counsel for Plaintiff spent 3.5 hours in preparation for this motion and 1.5 more in attending the court’s hearing thereon. Plaintiff’s counsel charges compensated for at the rate of $600.00 per hour, Further, Plaintiff expended $69.95 in filing fees for each individual motion. Defendant therefore requests that this court order Plaintiff and their attorney of record, to pay sanctions in the amount of $3069.95.

            The Court does have a Standing Order Re: Motions to Compel Furthers, which requires the parties to engage in an informal discovery conference (IDC) process prior to filing any motion to compel further responses.  Plaintiff’s motion is a motion to compel further responses to his document request pursuant to his deposition subpoena, yet the IDC procedures were not followed.  Moreover, it appears that communication between the parties would have resolved this issue without the need for motion practice.  As such, the Court will grant sanctions, but in the reduced and reasonable amount of $750.  Sanctions are payable within 30 days.