Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV03843, Date: 2025-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV03843    Hearing Date: June 13, 2025    Dept: I

The motion to compel the deposition is MOOT.  The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2735, payable in 30 days by plaintiff only.

Defendant sought to take plaintiff’s deposition.  The notice also included a document request.  After the motion was filed, plaintiff appeared for deposition.  That moots the substantive part of the motion, but not the request for sanctions. 

Defendant served the deposition notice on September 9, 2024.  Although defendant chose the date, counsel also included a letter stating that the date would be changed if not convenient for plaintiff, which is entirely proper.  A couple weeks before the deposition, plaintiff’s counsel asked that the deposition be postponed during settlement discussions and the defendant agreed.  Plaintiff changed counsel, and new counsel requested an extension to respond to an outstanding 998 offer.  The extension was granted through February 6, 2025, but defense counsel stated that if the case did not settle, the parties needed to get the deposition back on calendar.  Eventually, the 998 offer was not accepted and defense counsel asked for new dates.  Defense counsel also proposed dates.  But plaintiff did not respond.  Counsel followed up and was told a new attorney handled and dates would be forthcoming, but they were not.  D wrote another letter with new dates, but still no dates accepted.  Only after the motion was filed did the deposition go forward.  There is no excuse for this sort of delay by plaintiff, and plaintiff offers none.  Accordingly, sanctions are appropriate.  Plaintiff complains about the hourly rate.  However, it appears that plaintiff is making the rate up, as the rate defendant seeks is far lower than what plaintiff thinks.  Frankly, the amount of sanctions requested is a bargain.  It is therefore GRANTED.