Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV40634, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40634    Hearing Date: March 1, 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

            Cross-Defendant Douglas Means (Cross-Defendant Means) moves the Court to compel the appearances of Cross-Complainants Natalie Bebejian and Shant Bebejian (collectively, Cross-Complainants) for deposition and to produce documents requested in the deposition notices.  Cross-Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Cross-Complainants oppose the motion.  Cross-Defendant replies.

            Preliminarily, the Court finds that Cross-Defendant Means filed one motion to compel both Cross-Complainants’ depositions. Instead, Cross-Defendant Means should have filed one motion as to each request to compel deposition for a total of two motions.  The Court will therefore order Cross-Defendant Means to pay an additional $60 in filing fees. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (a).)

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).)

Here, on December 1, 2021, Cross-Defendant Veronica Soto served notices of taking depositions of Cross-Complaints, setting the depositions for January 26, 2022.  On December 7, 2021, Cross-Defendant Means served Notices of Joinder in Cross-Defendant Veronica Soto’s Notices of Deposition of Cross-Complainants.  (See Declaration of Dean L. Chalamidas, ¶¶ 4-5, Exhibits A-B.)

On December 9, 2021, Cross-Complainants served objections stating “the deposition was set unilaterally and the date and time is not available for Defendant/Cross-Complainant nor her counsel to appear.  Defendant/Cross-Complainant and her counsel have previously scheduled engagements on January 26, 2022.”  (See Declaration of Dean L. Chalamidas, ¶ 6, Exhibit C.) 

On May 27, 2022, Cross-Defendant Means served notices of taking the depositions of Cross-Complainants, setting the depositions for June 22, 2022 and June 29, 2022.  (See Declaration of Dean L. Chalamidas, ¶ 8, Exhibit D.)  On May 31, 2022, Cross-Complainants served objections to the depositions.  (See Declaration of Dean L. Chalamidas, ¶ 9, Exhibit E.)

On June 9, 2022, June 15, 2022, June 21, 2022, Cross-Defendant Means sent meet and confer emails to counsel for Cross-Complainants asking for deposition dates.  Because there was no response from Cross-Complainants’ counsel, Cross-Defendant Means took the June 2022 depositions off calendar.  Deposition dates had not yet been agreed upon at the time of filing the instant motion.  (See Declaration of Dean L. Chalamidas, ¶¶ 10-13, Exhibits F-G.)

In opposition, Cross-Complainants argue the Court should deny Cross-Defendant Means’s motion for the following reasons: (1) the depositions identified in Cross-Defendant Means’s motion were taken off-calendar, thus it is unclear which depositions Cross-Complainants failed to appear for; (2) Cross-Complainants filed and served valid objections to said depositions; and (3) Cross-Complainants offered dates for their depositions to Cross-Defendant on multiple occasions.

In reply, Cross-Defendant contends that the motion is based on deposition notices that were served on July 12 2022, setting the depositions for August 30, 2022 and August 31, 2022, and on July 26, 2022, setting the depositions on August 31, 2022 and September 1, 2022.  (See Declaration of Michelle M. Spencer, ¶¶ 2-3, Exhibits H-I.)  However, Cross-Defendant Means did not address the July 2022 deposition notices in the moving papers and thus Cross-Complainants have not had an opportunity to address Cross-Defendant Means’s arguments concerning the July 2022 deposition notices. 

Therefore, the Court will continue the hearing on the motion to March 29, 2023 at 1:30 P.M. in Department 32. 

Cross-Complaints’ supplemental opposition shall be filed and served on or before March 15, 2023, and Cross-Defendant Means’s supplemental reply, if any, shall be filed and served on or before March 22, 2023.  The Court further orders that any supplemental memoranda of points and authorities shall not exceed five pages. 

 Further, the Court orders Cross-Defendant Means to pay an addition $60 in filing fees to the Clerk of the Court on or before March 29, 2023.