Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV21170, Date: 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV21170    Hearing Date: September 26, 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 Karma Christine Hughes moves to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Vrej Sarian Ghalehmaleki.  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 June 15, 2021, Defendant served a deposition notice on Plaintiff.  Defendant noticed the deposition for July 8, 2021.  However, counsel for Plaintiff informed counsel for Defendant that there was an administrative error and the deposition was not on counsel for Plaintiff’s calendar.  Consequently, Plaintiff’s deposition did not proceed on July 8, 2021. 

 After a series of attempts to reschedule and proceed with Plaintiff’s deposition, on April 29, 2022, Defendant served a deposition notice on Plaintiff (who is now a self-represented litigant).  Defendant noticed the deposition for May 17, 2022.  Yet, Plaintiff failed to appear for deposition on May 17, 2022. 

However, the proof of service attached to the operative deposition notice is not signed by the individual who served the deposition notice on Plaintiff.  Equally important, the proof of service indicates that the deposition notice was served electronically but Plaintiff’s mailing address is noted on the service list, not his email address.  (See Declaration of Jack H. Timourian, Exhibit I.) 

Therefore, the Court finds that the service of the operative deposition notice which is the subject of Defendant’s motion is procedurally defective.  In short, Defendant has failed to provide sufficient, competent proof that Plaintiff was served with the notice for his deposition on May 17, 2022. 

As a result, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff for the reasons stated above.  Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of the same.