Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 22CHCV01021, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV01021, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01021 Hearing Date: September 21, 2023 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 9/21/23 TRIAL DATE: 11/13/23

Case #22CHCV01021

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION

(Amended) Motion filed on 9/11/23.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Los Angeles Federal Credit Union

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Jessica J. Martin aka Jessica Jna Baker

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Jessica J. Martin aka Jessica Jna Baker to re-appear for her deposition on 9/22/23 and answer questions. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,214.45.

RULING: The motion is denied.

This action arises out of Plaintiff Los Angeles Federal Credit Union’s (Plaintiff) claims that Defendant Jessica J. Martin aka Jessica Jna Baker (Defendant) has defaulted on two loans made by Plaintiff to Defendant. On 10/31/22, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Money Lent, (3) Claim and Delivery, (4) Breach of Contract and (5) Money Lent. On 1/5/23, Defendant, representing herself, filed an answer to the complaint.

On 6/28/23, Plaintiff served Defendant with a notice of taking her deposition on 7/25/23. (Graziano Decl., Ex.A). On 7/25/23, Defendant appeared for her deposition; however, Plaintiff contends that Defendant refused to answer any questions other than her name, former names, and her mailing address. (Graziano Decl., Ex.B).

Therefore, on 7/27/23, Plaintiff filed and served its first motion seeking an order compelling Defendant to re-appear for her deposition on 9/22/23 and answer questions. Additionally, Plaintiff requested sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,214.45. On 8/18/23, Defendant filed and served, by regular mail, an opposition to the first motion. On 9/1/23, this Court denied the first motion without prejudice.

On 9/11/23, Plaintiff filed the instant Amended Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Defendant to Re-Appear and Answer Questions At Deposition and requested sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,214.45. Although the motion was not filed until 9/11/23, according to the proof of service attached to the motion, Plaintiff served the motion on Defendant on 9/7/23. On 9/8/23, Defendant filed and served, by regular mail, an opposition to the motion.

The motion misrepresents that on 9/1/23, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to 9/21/23. (See Motion, p.3:9-10). The Minute Order from 9/1/23 specifically states that the motion was denied without prejudice. (See 9/1/23 Minute Order, p.1, p.3). Additionally, the Minute Order indicates that the “[d]ate of 9/21/2023, at 8:30 a.m., in Department F47at Chatsworth Courthouse is reserved for hearing on Plaintiff’s new motion to compel deposition.” (9/1/23 Minute Order, p.3). There is no indication in the 9/1/23 Minute Order that the Court shortened time to hear the new motion and it was counsel’s obligation to determine whether the 9/21/23 reserved date provided sufficient time to notice a new motion.

As noted above, Plaintiff did not serve the instant/new motion until 9/7/23 and did not file same until 9/11/23 which does not meet the statutory requirements to file and serve the motion at least 16 court days before the 9/21/23 hearing date, plus 2 court days for service by email. See CCP 1005(b); CCP 1010.6(a)(3)(B).

Even if the defect in service is deemed waived based on Defendant’s opposition to the motion, Plaintiff has failed to adequately address the bases on which the prior motion was denied.

One of the reasons the prior motion failed was because it was not accompanied by a separate statement as required by CRC 3.1345. While Plaintiff has filed a separate statement in support of the instant motion, the separate statement is inadequate. In part, a separate statement must set forth “[a] statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute.” CRC 3.1345(c)(3). With regard to three of the questions at issue, Plaintiff merely cites authority which provides that all doubts about discovery are resolved in favor of disclosure and as to the remaining 14 questions, Plaintiff merely states, without citing any authority, that “[t]his is not a criminal case.” Plaintiff has failed to adequately explain why Defendant’s responses are improper and/or provide authority to support its position.

Another reason the first motion was denied was because the Court found that Plaintiff failed to satisfy its meet and confer obligation before filing that motion. (See 9/1/23 Minute Order, pp.2-3). The instant motion indicates that on 9/1/23, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant a meet and confer letter requesting that she appear for her deposition on either 9/7/23 or 9/12/23 at 1 pm. (Anaya Decl. ¶3, Ex.A). The declaration of attorney Anaya indicates that Defendant did not agree to reset the deposition date and therefore, an order compelling Defendant’s deposition is still needed. (Anaya Decl. ¶4). However, a review of Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s 9/1/23 meet and confer letter indicates that the dates selected by Plaintiff conflicted with Defendant’s schedule and Defendant stated: “Should you propose a schedule and we can agree upon a date and time, I’ll be happy to oblige.” (Anaya Decl., Ex.B; See also Opposition, p.7:6-18, p.9:10-12 and Ex.A thereto). There is no indication that Plaintiff made any effort to contact Defendant thereafter to attempt to schedule a mutually agreeable date for the deposition. Further, the meet and confer letter, like the instant motion and accompanying separate statement fails to provide authority as to why Plaintiff is entitled to substantive answers to each of the questions at issue. Instead, Plaintiff merely cites authority for the proposition that a party is entitled to take depositions which is not the issue as Defendant has appeared for her deposition and is seemingly willing to appear for another deposition on a mutually agreeable date.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied.