Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 22-01271912, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

The Motion by Defendants Ken Cooper, D.C., FICPA and Cooperstown Chiropractic (collectively, “Defendants”) for an order compelling Plaintiff Sambah Lamrabet (“Plaintiff”) to appear for deposition is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is granted as to compelling Plaintiff’s appearance only.  The Motion is otherwise denied.

Plaintiff and Defendant’s counsel should be prepared at the hearing to agree on a deposition date within 30 days; otherwise, the Court will select a date and order the parties to appear.

Defendants are awarded sanctions of $500 against Plaintiff, payable within 30 days.

Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2025.450(a) provides that when a party deponent is served with a deposition notice and fails to appear for deposition without having served a valid objection under CCP section 2025.410, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony at deposition.  The motion must be accompanied by a declaration under CCP section 2016.040 stating that the moving party contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.  Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(b)(2).

CCP section 2025.450(a) also provides that the moving party may seek an order compelling production of documents sought in the deposition notice, but such motion must set forth facts showing good cause justifying the production of the documents sought.  Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a), (b)(1).  A showing of “good cause” is made by declarations containing specific facts justifying inspection of the documents described in the notice.   Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial § 8:801.2 (Rutter Group 2013).  The moving party also must submit a separate statement of the matters in dispute and set forth the legal and factual reasons why documents should be produced.  CRC 3.1345(a)(5).

Plaintiff did not serve an objection to either of the deposition notices served on her, but failed to appear for deposition.  Although she sent a letter asking for a much later time frame for the deposition, she did not respond to the attempts by Defendants’ counsel to follow up.  And though the supporting declaration from Defendants’ counsel does not state that counsel contacted Plaintiff to inquire about the nonappearance, it does show attempts to contact Plaintiff about her deposition and discovery.  [Jeffery Decl., Ex. F.]

Under these circumstances, it does not appear further attempt at inquiry by Defendants’ counsel or other meet and confer efforts would have been constructive.

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel Plaintiff’s appearance at deposition.

As for documents, there was no attempt in the motion or supporting declaration to establish good cause.  The motion with respect to the documents is therefore DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.