Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 19STLC03652, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STLC03652    Hearing Date: December 21, 2022    Dept: 26

Thomas v. Delgado, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL APPEARANCE AT DEPOSITION

AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2025.450)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Carolina Delgado-Bailon’s Motion to Compel Appearance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF REGINALD THOMAS IS ORDRED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Reginald Thomas (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Irais Delgado (“Defendant Delgado”) and Carolina Delgado-Bailon (“Defendant Delgado-Bailon”) April 15, 2019. Defendants answered the Complaint on December 7, 2021. On August 30, 2022, the Court granted Defendant Delgado’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions and dismissed her from the action with prejudice. (Minute Order, 08/30/22.)

On October 7, 2022, Defendant Delgado-Bailon filed the instant Motion to Compel Deposition and Request for Sanctions. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) states in relevant part:

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must also “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice” and “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (2).)

Defendant Delgado-Bailon served Plaintiff with a Notice of Deposition on September 2, 2022, setting the deposition for September 21, 2022. (Motion, Hong Decl., ¶7 and Exhs. A-B.) Plaintiff made no response or objection to the notice. (Ibid.) Plaintiff did not appear for the deposition on September 21, 2022. (Id. at ¶9 and Exh. C.) Despite a meet and confer effort, Plaintiff did not explain failing to appear or otherwise respond. (Ibid.) Defendant Delgado-Bailon served an amended Notice of Deposition on September 23, 2022, setting the deposition for October 6, 2022. (Id. at ¶10 and Exh. D.) Again, Plaintiff did not appear for deposition on October 6, 2022. (Id. at ¶11.) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the meet and confer requirement has been satisfied and that Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s attendance at deposition.

Conclusion

Defendant Carolina Delgado-Bailon’s Motion to Compel Appearance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF REGINALD THOMAS IS ORDRED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.