Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV02869, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV02869    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    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 Andrea Fenninger (Defendant) moves the Court to compel the appearance of Plaintiff Christopher Paul Desiderio (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 September 17, 2021, Defendant served deposition notice on Plaintiff. Defendant noticed the deposition of Plaintiff for January 13, 2022.  On February 11, 2022, Defendant continued Plaintiff’s deposition to March 31, 2022. On March 30, 2022, the day before the continued deposition date, Plaintiff’s counsel stated Plaintiff would not attend the noticed deposition due to unavailability.  As of the date of filing of the motion, counsel for Plaintiff has not provided alterative dates for Plaintiff’s deposition and thus, 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, Hesam Yazdanpanah and Vania Nemanpour, in the amount of $540.51, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $160.17 per hour, plus the motion filing fee of $60.  

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, Hesam Yazdanpanah and Vania Nemanpour, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $540.51 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.