Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 21LBCV00257, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21LBCV00257 Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Dept: S27
1. Background
Facts
Plaintiff, Juan Carlos Sanchez
filed this action against Defendants, Lucy E. Ramirez, Luz Elena Ramirez and
Vision One Mortgage, Inc. on 5/06/21.
The complaint includes causes of action for quiet title, partition,
breach of contract, and fraud. The
complaint includes four pages of background facts concerning the parties’
identities and jurisdiction over the case, then skips from page 4 to page 11
and states a prayer. On 6/09/21,
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata, which contains the body of the complaint.
On 12/07/21, the Court sustained
Luz Elena Ramirez’s demurrer with leave to amend. On 12/10/21, Plaintiff dismissed Vision
One. On 12/14/21, Plaintiff filed a
First Amended Complaint.
2. Motion
to Compel Deposition
Defendant, Luz Elena Ramirez seeks
to compel Plaintiff, Juan Carlos Sanchez’s deposition. The parties agree that the following is a
timeline of the events relating to the deposition:
·
6/08/22: Defendant
notices Plaintiff’s deposition for 6/30/22
·
6/30/22: Plaintiff
fails to appear
·
7/01/22: Defendant
sends meet and confer letter; Plaintiff does not respond
·
8/11/22: Plaintiff
indicates 9/23/22 is available for deposition
·
9/06/22: Defendant
propounds notice of deposition, setting it for 9/23/22
·
9/20/22: Plaintiff
objects to deposition, indicating it falls on Native American day and
indicating he wishes to have his deposition conducted after Co-Defendant, Luz
Elena’ deposition takes place
·
10/28/22: Defendant
notices Plaintiff’s deposition for 11/18/22
·
11/02/22: Defendant
files this motion
·
11/18/22: Plaintiff
appears for deposition, but the deposition concludes an hour later with the
parties disagreeing concerning whether Plaintiff was compliant or not during
the deposition.
·
12/01/22: Defendant
files a reply seeking an order requiring Plaintiff to appear and answer
questions, setting an IDC, and continuing the hearing date to set dates for
further briefing on the parties’ dispute concerning the sufficiency of
Plaintiff’s responses at deposition.
The motion itself is moot. Notably, Defendant expressly did not seek
sanctions in connection with the motion.
Plaintiff appeared on 11/18/22. The
issue between the parties now concerns whether Plaintiff’s responses were
sufficient. The Court does not have a transcript
of the deposition from either party, and therefore cannot determine whether
Plaintiff behaved appropriately or not.
The Court offers the parties the
following guidance. First, to the extent
Plaintiff is trying to push off his obligation to sit for deposition and
respond to questions until after the deposition of the co-defendant goes
forward, this is inappropriate. There is
nothing in the Code permitting preference in order of depositions. Plaintiff’s deposition has been properly
noticed since June of this year.
Plaintiff has at times failed entirely to respond to meet and confer
attempts, and Plaintiff admits he failed to show up on 6/30/22 without even
giving notice that he would not appear. Plaintiff’s
behavior is not justified and must cease.
Second, to the extent Plaintiff is
responding to deposition questions with contradictory information and then
refusing to clarify, this is inappropriate.
Plaintiff must fully and completely respond to all questions posed in
the deposition unless there is a valid objection.
The Court asks Counsel to meet and
confer to schedule a date and time for the second session of Plaintiff’s
deposition to go forward forthwith. Plaintiff
must meaningfully participate in the deposition. The Court will not set an IDC or continued
hearing at this time, but admonishes Plaintiff that failure to participate
fully in discovery is sanctionable and will not be condoned.
Defendant is ordered to give
notice.