Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC03783, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC03783    Hearing Date: January 3, 2023    Dept: 26

Carcamo v. LACMTA, et al.
MOTION TO COMPEL APPEARANCE AT DEPOSITION

AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2025.450)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motion to Compel Appearance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF HEUSTON CARCAMO IS ORDRED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $540.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Heuston Carcamo (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of settlement agreement against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) June 3, 2022. Defendant answered the Complaint on July 26, 2022.

On December 6, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Deposition and Request for Sanctions. No Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 19, 2022 and Defendant replied on December 27, 2022.

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 served Plaintiff with a Notice of Deposition on November 2, 2022, setting the deposition for November 21, 2022. (Motion, Yehoshua Decl., Exh. A.) On the same date, Plaintiff’s counsel responded that they were out of town from November 18-28, 2022. (Id. at Exh. B.) Defense counsel also responded on the same day with alternative dates for the deposition that were before Plaintiff’s counsel’s trip. (Ibid.) The attorneys emailed back and forth from November 14-16, 2022 and Plaintiff’s counsel served an objection to the deposition notice on November 16, 2022. (Id. at Exh. C.) Plaintiff’s counsel suggested defense counsel wait until receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees before moving forward with the deposition. (Ibid.) Defense counsel responded that Defendant was entitled to take Plaintiff’s deposition based on the facts in the Complaint. (Ibid.) Ultimately, the attorneys could not reach an agreement and Defendant filed the instant Motion. (Id. at Exh. D.) Based on this history, the meet and confer requirement has been satisfied.

Plaintiff’s meet and confer suggested waiting for the Motion for Attorney’s Fees before taking their deposition, but Defendant was not obligated to do so. Nor did Plaintiff serve a valid objection to the deposition notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410. An objection under section 2025.410 pertains to whether the deposition notice complies with sections 2025.210, et seq., none of which pertain to the availability of the deponent’s attorney on the date of the scheduled deposition.

Nor does Plaintiff’s contention that their deposition will not provide information relevant to this action have any bearing on Defendant’s right to discover any matter that “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) The dispute between the parties remains pending as there is no judgment or other resolution to this action.

Due to Plaintiff’s failure to make a valid objection under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410 and to cooperate in the taking of their deposition by providing available dates, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s deposition. An award of sanctions is also appropriate due to Plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in the taking of their deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $540.00 based on three hours of attorney time billed at $180.00 per hour. (Motion, Yehoshua Decl., ¶11.)

Conclusion

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motion to Compel Appearance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF HEUSTON CARCAMO IS ORDRED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $540.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.