Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV05639, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV05639    Hearing Date: February 9, 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 Gurmet Singh and L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. dba Yellow Cab Co. (“Defendants”) move the Court to compel the depositions of Michael Islikaplan and Yegis Shmavonyan (collectively “Deponents”).

ANALYSIS

Where the witness whose deposition is sought is not a party or a “party-affiliated” witness, a subpoena must be served to compel his or her attendance, testimony, or production of documents.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010, subd. (a)(1).)  If a nonparty disobeys a deposition subpoena, the subpoenaing party may seek a court order compelling the nonparty to comply with the subpoena within 60 days after completion of the deposition record.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subds. (a)-(b).)  Where the deposition subpoena requires a witness to appear for the taking of a deposition, the Court may make an order directing compliance with the subpoena.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1(a).)  A nonparty opposing such a motion in bad faith or without substantial justification may be subject to sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2(a).) 

The Court denies Defendants’ Motion because Defendants have failed to show that Deponents have declined to appear for deposition or disobeyed a deposition subpoena.  Defendants’ Motion instead appears to be a motion to compel Plaintiff’s attorney to appear for Deponents’ depositions because she has been unavailable due to personal matters.  (See Stein Decl., ¶¶ 10-24, 31-33.)  Defendants represent that Deponents’ depositions have not gone forward because of Plaintiff’s attorney unavailability.  (Id.)  The Deponents are not represented by Plaintiff’s attorney, and they have agreed to appear for the depositions.  (See id. at ¶¶ 21-22.)  To the extent, Plaintiff’s attorney is not available to appear, or have someone from her office appear on her behalf, Plaintiff’s attorney may file a motion for leave to take a second deposition of Deponents, and provide evidence of good cause regarding her unavailability. 

Equally important, the Court finds that Defendants failed to personally serve the Motion on Deponents in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Deponents’ Depositions is DENIED.

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