Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 23PSCV01324, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23PSCV01324, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01324 Hearing Date: September 30, 2024 Dept: 26

Jones v. Sexton, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2025.450)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Adeleigh Patricia Sexton and Leon Sexton’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Attendance at Deposition is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF SHAINA MIKAELA JONES IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 45 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Shaina Mikaela Jones (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Adeleigh Patricia Sexton and Leon Sexton (“Defendants”) on May 2, 2023. Defendants filed an answer on July 7, 2023.

On September 4, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Attendance at Deposition. 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).)

Defendants served Plaintiff with a Notice of Deposition in July 2024, setting the deposition for August 22, 2024. (Motion, Ching Decl., Exh. D.) Prior to the date set for deposition, Plaintiff served objections. (Id. at Exh. C.) Defense counsel sought to meet and confer regarding the objection because Plaintiff now lives in Japan and it would be very difficult to take Plaintiff’s deposition remotely. (Id. at ¶6 and Exh. A.) As the Motion points out, “the United States Embassy website for Tokyo states: “Depositions are controlled by detailed agreements between the United States and the Government of Japan, and procedures cannot be modified or circumvented. Orders by US courts cannot compel the Government of Japan to amend or deviate from its judicial regulations and procedures. In addition, the Embassy cannot compel the Government of Japan to act faster, or in a way more convenient or beneficial to any party, even with a US court order requesting such action.” (https://jp.usembassy.gov/services/depositions-in-japan.)” (Motion, p. 6:2-7.) The alternative is to compel a person or party living in Japan to travel for deposition. (See Sonneveldt v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2020) 2020 WL 5372103, *3.) Following the meet and confer effort by Defendants, Plaintiff’s counsel stated they would get back about the deposition date but have not done so. (Motion, Ching Decl., ¶6.)

Based on this history and the lack of any opposition, Defendants have demonstrated that the meet and confer requirement is satisfied and that there was no good cause for Plaintiff’s failure to communicate regarding discovery. Due to Plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in the taking of their deposition, Defendants are entitled to an order compelling their appearance.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.