Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV05547, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05547    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Juni, et al., v. San Remo Ent LP, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV05547

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Deposition

HEARING DATE:   3/19/2024

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 San Remo Ent., L.P., and Dr. Bruce King move to compel the deposition of Plaintiffs Sybil Juni.  On December 11, 2023, Defendants noticed the deposition of Juni, setting the deposition for January 12, 2024. The Notice also sought the production of two categories of documents:

1. All DOCUMENTS that in any way RELATE TO or mention DEFENDANTS or any

individual defendant described in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the COMPLAINT.

2. All DOCUMENTS that in any way RELATE TO or mention the SAN REMO

PROPERTY.

(Roth decl., Ex. 2.)

Plaintiffs served an objection to the notice on December 13, 2023, objecting to the location and unilaterally set date of the deposition. The parties met and conferred throughout December but did not resolve the issues. (Roth Decl., ¶ 9.) The deposition proceeded on January 12, 2024, but Juni did not appear as noticed. (Id., ¶¶ 11-13.) In a meet and confer effort, Plaintiffs reiterated their objections to the Deposition Notice, and offered unspecified dates in late March or early April 2024 for the deposition. (Roth Decl. ¶ 12, Exs. 6-8.) Defendants took a Certificate of Non-Appearance against Juni. (Roth Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. 9.)

Defendants establish that they served a valid Notice of Deposition against Juni, and that Juni failed to appear. Furthermore, Juni has not opposed this motion, and therefore failed to justify her objections to the notice. Defendants provide evidence that the objections are invalid. First, there is no objection to a unilaterally set deposition. Second, Defendants show that the deposition was set to occur within 75 miles of Juni’s residence. (See Compl., ¶ 1.) Thus, the objection to the location of the deposition is baseless.

Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED.

Defendants request sanctions in the amount of $5,000.00, for 10 hours of attorney time at a rate of $500/hr. Despite counsel’s characterization of these hours as “conservative,” the Court finds this requested to be an unreasonable sanction. (See Roth Decl., ¶ 19.) The Court is inclined to award five hours for time spent taking the certificate of non-appearance, drafting the moving papers, and appearing at the hearing for this motion, plus costs associated with the certificate and motion. Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff Sybil Juni and her counsel of record in the reduced amount of $2,560.00, jointly and severally, and inclusive of costs. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendants’ counsel within 30 days.