Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV00299, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV00299    Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Defendants Alicia Maldonado and Maria Maldonado (collectively, Defendants) move the Court to compel the appearance of Plaintiff Jennifer Flores (Plaintiff) for deposition.  Defendants request monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.  Defendants reply.

ANALYSIS

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent’s attendance and testimony. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Here, on November 15, 2022, Defendants served the subject, ninth-amended, deposition notice on Plaintiff.  Defendants noticed the deposition for December 13, 2022.  Plaintiff failed to appear for deposition on this date.  As of the date of filing of this motion, Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition.

            In opposition, Plaintiff argue that Defendants’ motion is defective for Defendants’ failure to submit a meet and confer declaration in support of the instant motion; however, no such declaration is required where the deponent fails to attend the deposition.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)  Further, the Court finds that Defendants’ have sufficiently described their many attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the deposition at issue.  (See Declaration of Philip A. Kraft, ¶¶ 5-7.) 

Defendants seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she acted with substantial justification based on Plaintiff’s Counsel’s extensive illness and thus unavailability to attend deposition.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff acted with substantial justification and declines to award attorneys’ fees.  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants, in part, Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, and orders Plaintiff to appear for deposition within 30 days of notice of the Court’s order, unless Defendants stipulate otherwise.

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.