Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STCV18011, Date: 2023-11-14 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.

Ghazaryan v. Kennedy, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

(CCP § 2025.450)

Defendant Karla Nadine Kennedy’s Motion to Compel Appearance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF SARKIS GHAZARYAN IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF SARKIS GHAZARYAN IS ALSO ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $961.65 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

On June 1, 2022, Plaintiffs Sarkis Ghazaryan (“Plaintiff”) filed this motor vehicle action against Defendant Karla Nadine Kennedy (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an answer on July 12, 2022. On October 6, 2022, the case was reassigned to the limited jurisdiction court and following a trial setting conference, set for trial on November 29, 2023. (Minute Order, 03/29/23.)

Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney on June 7, 2023, indicating that they were self-represented going forward. On August 21, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Deposition and Request for Sanctions. No opposition has been filed to date.

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a), which 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 served Plaintiff with Notice of Deposition on February 15, 2023, setting the deposition for May 23, 2023. (Motion, Garibyan Decl., Exh. E.) Despite confirming the deposition date with Plaintiff’s counsel who appeared, Plaintiff failed to appear for deposition. (Id. at Exhs. F-G.) On June 30, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with another Notice of Deposition set for July 19, 2023. (Id. at Exh. H.) Defense counsel sought to confirm the deposition with Plaintiff on July 18, 2023 but Plaintiff was very upset that Defendant wanted to depose him. (Id. at ¶14.) Plaintiff again failed to appear on July 19, 2023. (Id at Exh. I.) Defendant served Plaintiff with another Notice of Deposition set for August 7, 2023 but Plaintiff again did not appear. (Id. at Exhs. J-K.) Nor has Plaintiff communicated a date to set the deposition despite defense counsel’s efforts. (Id. at ¶19.)

Based on this history and the lack of any opposition, Defendant has demonstrated that the meet and confer requirement is satisfied and that there was no good cause for Plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in the taking of their deposition. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s appearance and an award of sanctions (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $961.65 based on one hour of attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour, two non-appearance fees of $350.00 each, and $61.65 in filing fees. (Motion, Garibyan Decl., ¶24.)