Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV36363, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV36363    Hearing Date: February 6, 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 Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) moves to compel the appearance the following deponents: (1) Plaintiff John M.G. Doe, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Artur Garzaryan (Plaintiff); (2) Plaintiff’s mother, Angie Arzoumanians; and (3) Plaintiff’s father and Guardian Ad Litem, Artur Garzaryan.  LAUSD requests monetary sanctions in connection with the three motions.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.  LAUSD replies.   

ANALYSIS

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

1. Plaintiff’s Deposition

    

   Concerning the deposition of Plaintiff John M.G. Doe, LAUSD has agreed to withdraw the motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition.

    

2. Angie Arzoumanians’ Deposition

    

               Plaintiff contends that the motion with respect to the deposition of Angie Arzoumanians is moot because she has been produced for deposition on January 19, 2023.  Moreover, LAUSD confirms that the first session of Angie Arzoumanians’ deposition has been completed and second session has been scheduled.  (See Reply, pp. 3-4.) 

    

3. Artur Garzaryan’s Deposition

    

   As set forth in the Declaration of Araksya Boyadzhyan (Boyadzhyan), counsel for Plaintiff, Plaintiff was not opposed to producing Artur Garzaryan (Garzaryan) for deposition and issues with Garzaryan deposition centered on scheduling.  Moreover, Boyadzhyan declares that Garzaryan was made available for deposition: 

    

• In September 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel advised that the parents are available September 23, 2022, no response was provided to that email. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of said email correspondence.

   

• On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel advised that both parents are available on January 19, 2023. Defense counsel was intent on setting the autistic nonverbal minors on said date instead of setting both parents deposition. Attached as Exhibit G is said email correspondence from Plaintiff’s counsel sent on January 3, 2023.

   

  (Declaration of Araksya Boyadzhyan, ¶¶8-9.)  The Court notes that the offers to produce Garzaryan for deposition occurred before the motion was filed.  In reply, LAUSD does not squarely address the statements made by Boyadzhyan.  Therefore, the Court finds that the motion to compel Garzaryan’s deposition was unnecessary. [1]

   

1. Monetary Sanctions

    

   Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connect with the motion.  In opposition, Plaintiff argues sanctions are unwarranted.  The Court agrees with Plaintiff and finds that the imposition of monetary sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) 

    

   CONCLUSION AND ORDER

    

   Therefore, the Court denies LAUSD’s motions to compel Plaintiff, Angie Arzoumanian, and Artur Garzaryan to appear for deposition.

    

   LAUSD shall give notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.