Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV04420, Date: 2025-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04420    Hearing Date: April 16, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Schwartz, et al., v. TR-Malibu LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV04420

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Deposition

HEARING DATE:   4/16/2025

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).) If the deposition notice included a request for production of documents, the motion to compel attendance must also show good cause to justify the production. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(1).) 

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 declarations containing 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

Plaintiffs Adriane Schwartz and Daniel Schwartz (“Plaintiffs”) move to compel the deposition of Alex Glasscock, authorized representative of Defendants TR-Malibu LLC, Tralom SAT, LLC; Tralom Holdco Inc. and Tralom–SAT Management Co., Inc. (“Defendants”). Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,560.00 against Defendants.  

On January 29, 2025, Schwartz served a notice of deposition on Mr. Glasscock, a party-affiliated witness. (MRP Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) The deposition was set for February 13, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. via Zoom. (Id.) On February 10, 2025, at 7:31 p.m., Defendants served objections to the Deposition Notice. (Pacheco Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. C.) Defendants objected on the grounds that defense counsel was unavailable on the selected date and time, and further objected on relevance grounds and refused to produce the witness without “determined parameters.” (Id.) Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer but defense counsel failed to respond to emails or answer phone calls on the issue. (Pacheco Decl., ¶¶ 7-9.) Despite their representations, Defendants apparently refused to provide alternative deposition dates. In opposition to this motion, Defendants still do not provide dates when counsel would be available for deposition.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to produce the witness for deposition as noticed within 15 days. Sanctions are imposed in the noticed amount of $2,560.00 against Defendants. Sanctions are payable to Plaintiffs’ counsel of record within 30 days.