Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 23STCV00597, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STCV00597, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00597 Hearing Date: September 26, 2023 Dept: 26

Haney & Shah, LLP v. Tamjidi, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2025.450)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Haney & Shah, LLP’s Motion to Compel Appearance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. DEFENDANT SHAHRAM TAMJIDI AKA SHAWN TAMJIDI IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT SHAHRAM TAMJIDI AKA SHAWN TAMJIDI AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $660.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On January 11, 2023, Plaintiff Haney & Shah, LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants Shahram Tamjidi aka Shawn Tamjidi (“Defendant Tamjidi”) and Tamjidi Enterprises, Inc. Defendant Tamjidi filed an answer on February 21, 2023. On April 13, 2023, the parties stipulated to transfer the action from an independent calendar court to the limited jurisdiction court.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Deposition and Request for Sanctions on June 5, 2023. The Motion initially was set for hearing on August 7, 2023 and continued upon the parties’ stipulation. (Minute Order, 08/07/23.) No opposition, nor supplemental papers, have 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).)

Plaintiff served Defendant Tamjidi with a Notice of Deposition on March 31, 2023, setting the deposition for April 14, 2023. (Motion, Haney Decl., ¶2 and Exh. 1.) Defendant Tamjidi did not object to the deposition notice, nor otherwise communicate with Plaintiff regarding the deposition date. (Id. at ¶2.) However, the deposition did not take place. (Ibid.) On April 27, 2023, defense counsel indicated that a settlement offer would be forthcoming. (Id. at ¶3 and Exh. 2.) When no settlement offer was communicated, Plaintiff requested additional deposition dates but did not hear back from defense counsel. (Id. at ¶¶3-4 and Exh. 3.) This evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff sought to meet and confer regarding the deposition, to no avail.

Due to Defendant Tamjidi’s failure to cooperate in the taking of their deposition, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling their deposition. An award of sanctions is also appropriate due to Defendant Tamjidi’s non-cooperation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) However, the sanctions sought are excessive. Pursuant to a lodestar calculation, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $660.00 based on one hour of attorney time billed at $600.00 per hour and $60.00 in costs. (Motion, Haney Decl., ¶6.)

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.