Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV27988, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV27988    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

            Defendant Starbucks Corporation (Defendant) moves the Court to compel the appearance of Plaintiff Ashton Bznuni (Plaintiff) for deposition and produce documents requested in the deposition notice.  Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

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 August 1, 2022, Defendant served the subject deposition notice on Plaintiff.  Defendant noticed the deposition of Plaintiff for August 17, 2022.  On August 16, 2022, less than 24 hours before the start of the deposition, Plaintiff’s objected to the deposition going forward based on alleged unavailability.  As of the date of filing of this motion, Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition. 

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion. The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to appear for deposition to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Karin Mayelan of K & L Associates, in the amount of $1036.75, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $210 per hour, plus the motion filing, service, and deposition non-appearance fees amounting to $616.75.  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Karin Mayelan of K & L Associates, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,036.75 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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