Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 21STLC02672 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Defendants Ravinder Steven Singh, D.D.S. and Long Beach Total Dental Care’s Motion to Compel Appearance and Testimony at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF XIAOFU ZHANG IS ORDRED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF XIAOFU ZHANG IS FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $275.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Plaintiff Xiaofu Zhang (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed the instant action for dental malpractice against Defendants Ravinder Steven Singh, DDS (“Defendant Singh”) and Singh Dental Corporation dba Long Beach Total Dental Care (erroneously sued as Long Beach Total Dental Care) (“Defendant Singh Dental”) (collectively, Defendants”) on April 5, 2021. Defendantsfiled an Answer to the Complaint on October 12, 2021.

On August 4, 2022, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel Deposition and Request for Sanctions. No opposition has been filed to date.

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).)

Defendants served Plaintiff with a Notice of Deposition on July 14, 2022. (Motion, Raphelt Decl., Exh. A.) The deposition was scheduled for July 29, 2022 and defense counsel sought to confirm Plaintiff’s attendance on July 27, 2022. (Id. at Exh. B.) Plaintiff apparently served a response containing objections on July 25, 2022, which defense counsel received on July 29, 2022. (Id. at Exh. C.) Defense counsel sought to meet and confer about another deposition date but Plaintiff has not responded. (Id. at ¶¶6-8 and Exhs. D-E.)

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. Plaintiff’s response to the deposition notice was not coherent and did not offer a valid reason for his failure to participate in the discovery process. (See id. at Exh. C.) Nor did Plaintiff respond when Defendants sought to reschedule the deposition date.

An award of sanctions is also appropriate due to Plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in the taking of his deposition. Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions, however, is excessive for this straightforward and unopposed Motion. Sanctions are granted in the amount of $275.00 based on one hour of attorney’s fees billed at $215.00 per hour and $60.00 in costs. (Id. at ¶10.)

Defendants Ravinder Steven Singh, D.D.S. and Long Beach Total Dental Care’s Motion to Compel Appearance and Testimony at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF XIAOFU ZHANG IS ORDRED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF XIAOFU ZHANG IS FURTHER TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $275.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.